DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levitt et al. (US 2018/0127683 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11-12, Levitt teaches a detergent composition (10, 26-27, 133, claim 3), water; [24, Tables 2, 6], amino acids (instant claims 2, 3, 4) such as histidine, lysine, glycine; [abstract, 9, 18], and nonionic surfactants such as fatty alcohol alkoxylate, ethoxylated amine; [31, 36, 80], wherein the pH of solution is 7-10; [23, Table 5, 131, claim 5]. Levitt teaches inorganic acid and sodium hydroxide; [113].
Regarding claims 5-9, 13 and 15, Levitt teaches anionic surfactants such as alkylbenzene sulfonate, alkyl sulfate and alkylethoxy sulfate; [26-31, 36], nonionic surfactants such as fatty alcohol ethoxylate and alkoxylated amine; [45, 66, 68], zwitterionic surfactants, betaines; [89-90], and a base as NaOH, trisodium phosphate and sodium carbonate and organic acid; [113-115].
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Levitt teaches anionic surfactants such as alkylbenzene sulfonate, alkyl sulfate and alkylethoxy sulfate; [26-31, 36], nonionic surfactants such as fatty alcohol ethoxylate and alkoxylated amine; [45, 66, 68], chelating and antibacterial agents; [claim 13], and the rest of ingredients (instant claim 18) anionic, nonionic surfactants, amino acid, enzymes; enzyme; [25, 110], chelating and biocide agents; [claim 13], an acid such as alkylbenzene sulfonic acid; [110, 120].
Regarding claim 20, The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties (i.e. scavenging chlorine from 1 liter of water to 0 ppm in less than 60 seconds) are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. scavenging chlorine from 1 liter of water to 0 ppm in less than 60 seconds, would inherently be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt et al. (US 2018/0127683 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Krubasik et al. (US 2020/0248105 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Levit teaches enzyme (25, 110) but does not specify their types. However the analogous art of krubasik teaches a detergent composition (9, 27, claim 3) comprising enzymes such as lipase and protease; [148]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose the protease or lipase enzymes for improved (motivation) stain removal and cleaning purposes as taught by both Levitt and Krubasik above. Furthermore (instant claim 14), Levitt does not teach citric acid (organic acid). However Krubasik teaches a detergent composition comprising citric acid; [144, Table 2]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the citric acid of Krubasik with the motivation of adjusting pH of solution to desired range, as taught by both Levitt and Krubasik above. With respect to claim 17, Levitt does not teach the inorganic perhydrate salt. However, Krubasik teaches sodium percarbonate; [abstract, 13, 86]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the percarbonate to Levitt’s composition with the motivation of enhancing its biocidal properties, due to the release of hydrogen peroxide into the composition.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt et al. (US 2018/0127683 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sun et al. (US 11,760,962 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Levit does not teach the tetra sodium glutamate diacetate as instantly claimed. However the analogous art of Sun teaches a cleaning detergent composition comprising citric acid and tetra sodium glutamate diacetate; [4: 46-53]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add citric acid and tetra sodium glutamate with motivation of adjusting pH of solution (citric acid is buffering agent) and also softening of water (glutamate…) for improved washing and cleaning performance of the composition. Please note that the rest of the claim limitations on lines 2-4 are previously addressed on the USC 102 rejections of the claims above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM- 6 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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/02/18
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767