Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/30/2024, 07/25/2024, 09/27,2024, and 04/01/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group 1 (claim 1-10) without traverse in the reply filed on 03/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-10 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the second surfactant is the alkyl pyrrolidone is C8 or C10 alkyl pyrrolidone”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). or the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 5 will be interpreted as the second surfactant is an alkyl capped ethoxylate or butyl capped alcohol ethoxylate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Riehm et. al (US2019/0284505A1) hereinafter Riehm.
With regards to claims 1 and 4, Riehm teaches a detergent composition comprising of an alkalinity source (including an alkali metal carbonate and/or an alkali metal hydroxide), and two or more nonionic surfactants (see [0040]). An exemplary composition is taught in Table 8 comprising 2 wt% Pluronic N3 (first surfactant), 2 wt% Tetronic 90R4 (second surfactant), and a base further comprising of 66.23 wt% sodium hydroxide (alkalinity source) among others (see Formula 5, [0259]). The detergent composition is taught be a solid (see [0253]). Riehm also teaches the use of Pluronic 25R2 in Example 3 (see [0257]). Pluronic 25R2, Pluronic N3, and Tetronic 90R4 are known in the art as suitable block EO/PO polymer nonionic surfactants of about 10-40 wt% EO (see [0056]; see also [0257]). Pluronic N3 is explicitly disclosed to be 30% EO (see [0259]).
With regards to claims 2-3, Pluronic 25R2, Pluronic N3, and Tetronic 90R4 are noted in the instant specification as suitable EO/PO block polymer surfactants with Pluronic 25R2 having 20% EO, Pluronic N3 having a 1:1 blend of 20% EO and 40%, and Tetronic 90R4 having 40% EO (see Applicant Specification [0066]-[0068]; [0209]-[0215]).
With regards to claim 7, Riehm teaches the optional use of chelating agents in the composition (see [0078]). The specific use of EDTA, MGDA, HEDTA, EDDS, among other chelants known in the art are recited (see [0067]).
With regards to claim 8, Riehm teaches the optional use of hydrotopes in the composition (see [0078]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Riehm (US20190284505A1) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-8, in view of Smith et. al (EP2142627B1) hereinafter Smith.
The teachings of Riehm are recited above. Riehm generally teaches the use of two, preferably nonionic, surfactants that have defoaming properties (see [0005]). However, the use of an alkyl capped alcohol ethoxylate surfactant with regards to claims 5 is not specifically disclosed. Riehm also does not disclose a C8 or C10 alkyl pyrrolidone with regards to claim 6.
With regards to claim 5, Smith teaches a composition comprising an alkalinity source and a surfactant among others (see [0009]). Smith specifically discloses the use of C6-C24 alcohol ethoxylate having 1-20 ethylene oxide groups (R1-O-(SH2CH2O)n-R2 where R1= C6-C24, n=1-20, R2=C1-C4) nonionic surfactant in the composition for their low foaming properties (see [0062]; see also [0064]). This overlaps with the teachings of alkyl capped alcohol ethoxylate recited in the instant claim for the same purpose of defoaming the final composition.
It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”). Smith additionally teaches the use of butyl capped polyethylene glycol ether (also known as butyl capped alcohol ethoxylate) and alkyl capped polyoxyalkyene derivative nonionic surfactants (see [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Tetronic 90R4 in Riehm’s composition with a butyl capped polyethylene glycol ether surfactant as taught by Smith. The person of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the final product being low-foaming (see [0060]).
With regards to claim 6, Smith teaches the use of polyvinyl pyrrolidone with a hydrogen peroxide as an active oxygen compound (see [0087]). Although not explicitly taught as a surfactant, the use of polyvinyl pyrrolidone overlaps with C8 or C10 alkyl pyrrolidone teaching recited in the instant claim. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
Riehm’s inventive composition can comprise of enzymes and hence, methods of forming a detergent composition without heat, such as solidification, are preferred (see [0127]). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riehm’s composition by adding polyvinyl pyrrolidone as an oxygen active for the benefit of providing an oxygen source during the solidification of the composition (see [0087]).
With regards to claim 9, Smith teaches the general use of both butyl capped polyethylene glycol ether nonionic surfactant and a polyvinyl pyrrolidone oxygen active as recited above. Riehm’s alkaline composition is taught to have defoaming properties and be formed without denaturing enzymes in the composition (see [0005]; see also [0127]). Solidification without heat is taught as the preferable method of forming (see [0127]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the composition of Riehm by combining both the butyl capped polyethylene glycol ether surfactant and Tetronic 90R4 surfactant for their defoaming properties (see [0062]) and a polyvinyl pyrrolidone oxygen active to provide oxygen during the solidification process (see [0087]) as taught by Smith.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights