The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment dated January 2, 2026.
Claims 21-23, 26, 28, 30-35 and 37 are pending. Claims 1-20 were previously cancelled. Claims 24-25, 27, 29, 36 and 38-40 are cancelled in the present amendment. Claims 21-23, 26, 28 and 31 are currently amended.
The objection to the disclosure for minor informalities on page 1, paragraph [0001] is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The objection to claims 22 and 23 for minor informalities is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph
is moot in view of the cancellation of this claim.
The rejection of claims 21-23, 26, 29-30, 32-36 and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Groth et al. (WO 95/06105), hereinafter “Groth” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 21-22, 24, 26, 30 and 32-39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kischkel et al. (WO 96/17922) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groth as applied to claims 21-23, 26, 29-30, 32-36 and 38-40 above is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-23, 26, 28, 30, 32-35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beimesch et al. (WO 98/14553), hereinafter “Beimesch” in view of Kischkel et al. (US 2003/0013629), hereinafter “Kischkel ‘629.”
Regarding claims 21-22, 28 and 31, Beimesch teaches a granular detergent composition prepared by a non-tower process which comprises the steps of: (a) dispersing a surfactant, and coating the surfactant with fine powder having a diameter from 0.1 to 500 microns, while wetting the surfactant coated with the fine powder with finely atomized liquid, in a mixer, and (b) thoroughly mixing the agglomerates in a mixer, and step (b) can also be followed by further step (c), i.e., granulating the agglomerates from step (b) in one or more fluidizing apparatus (see abstract), wherein the granular detergent composition reads on “the composition is a powder” in claim 21, line 7. Please note that para. [0050] of Applicant’s specification recites that the preferred powder forms include granulated solids. The granular detergent composition comprises from about 5% to about 60% by weight surfactants in total amount of the final product obtained by the process (see page 9, lines 10-15; page 4, lines 19-20), from about 30% to 94% by weight of the fine power (see page 11, line 30 to page 12, line 2), from about 1% to about 10% by weight (active basis) of the finely atomized liquid in total amount of the final product obtained by the process and one example is sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (see page 13, lines 20-28). The surfactant is preferably selected from anionic, nonionic, zwitterionic, ampholytic and cationic classes and compatible mixtures thereof (see page 9, lines 27-28). The nonionic and amphoteric surfactants include C10-C18 amine oxides (see page 10, lines 21-25). Beimesch, however, fails to specifically disclose a granular detergent composition comprising amine oxide and cellulose, wherein the ratio of the cellulose to amine oxide is between about 1:1.5 to about 1:30 by actives, the composition containing at least about 60 wt% active amine oxide surfactant, and the composition has less than about 5 wt% water as recited in claim 21; and wherein the ratio of the cellulose to amine oxide is between about 1:1.5 and about 1:20 by actives as recited in claim 22.
Kischkel ‘629, an analogous art, teaches that a similar process for preparing a surfactant composition which comprises mixing the ingredients in a mixer, then in a fluidized bed, produces granulates having a residual moisture of 2% by weight (see Example 2, paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared a granular detergent composition comprising amine oxide and sodium carboxy methyl cellulose because these are some of the suitable selections of surfactants and finely atomized liquid, respectively. With respect to the amount of the amine oxide surfactant, and the weight ratio of the amine oxide to the sodium carboxy methyl cellulose, considering that Beimesch teaches about 1% to about 10% by weight (active basis) of the finely atomized liquid like sodium carboxy methyl cellulose and 5% to about 60% by weight surfactants like amine oxide, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 5 wt% sodium carboxy methyl cellulose:60 wt% amine oxide or 1:12) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the granular detergent composition of Beimesch to have a water or residual moisture content of 2% by weight because this is a typical moisture content of granules prepared by a similar process as taught by Kischkel ‘629.
Regarding claim 23, Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Beimesch teaches C10-C18 amine oxides (see page 10, lines 21-25), wherein dodecyldimethylamine oxide, tridecyldimethylamine oxide, tetradecyldimethylamine oxide, pentadecyldimethylamine oxide and hexadecyldimethylamine oxide are envisaged.
Regarding claim 26, Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Beimesch teaches that the granular detergent composition comprises from about 5% to about 60% by weight surfactants in total amount of the final product (see page 9, lines 10-15; page 4, lines 19-20) and from about 30% to 94% by weight of the fine power (see page 11, line 30 to page 12, line 2). In addition, Beimesch teaches that the fine power includes sodium sulphate, among others (see page 11, lines 30-35). Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629, however, fails to specifically disclose a granular detergent composition wherein the ratio of the amine oxide to sodium sulphate is between about 1:1.5 to about 1:30 by actives.
Considering that Beimesch teaches about 5% to about 60% by weight surfactants like amine oxide and about 30% to 94% by weight of the fine power like sodium sulphate, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 30wt% sodium sulphate: 60 wt% amine oxide or 1:2) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 30, Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Beimesch teaches that the fine power includes sodium sulphate, among others (see page 11, lines 30-35), wherein the sodium sulphate has a water solubility of more than about 0.2 g/L at 20oC.
Regarding claims 32-35, Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Beimesch teaches that the anionic surfactants include C10-C20 alkyl sulfates (see page 10, lines 3-5), which reads on the carrier, and also have a water solubility of more than about 0.2 g/L at 20oC.
Regarding claim 37, Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 teaches the features as discussed above. Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629, however, fails to disclose the composition having less that about 2 wt% water.
As the word “about” permits some tolerance (see In re Ayers, 69 USPQ 109, and In re Erickson, 145 USPQ 207), the 2 wt% water in the composition of Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 may be considered to read on less than about 2 wt% water as recited in instant claim 37.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 as applied to claims 21-23, 26, 28, 30, 32-35 and 37 above, and further in view of Mort, III et al. (US 2007/0196502), hereinafter “Mort, III.”
Regarding claim 21, Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 teaches the features as discussed above. Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629, however, fails to disclose magnesium sulfate.
Mort, III, an analogous art, teaches the equivalency of sodium sulfate with magnesium sulfate as layering powders (see [0177]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sodium sulfate of Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 with magnesium sulfate because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Mort, III is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one layering powder for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on January 2, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection based upon Beimesch in view of Kischkel ‘629 as set forth in the last Office action because: the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present independent claim 21. The showing is only limited to the specific binders used, i.e., carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) or magnesium sulfate, and the specific weight ratio of the amine oxide and the CMC or magnesium sulfate, and not the generic cellulose or generic inorganic salt recited in independent claim 21. In addition, the showing did not provide the amount of water in the flowable powders, considering that claim 21 recites “less than about 5 wt% water.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Beimesch in view of Kischkel, Applicant argues that Applicant surprisingly found powders with high amounts of active amine oxide surfactant (at least greater than 60%) with cellulose and/or inorganic binder as shown in the Declaration of Wendy Lo.
The above response to the Declaration apply here as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights