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 § 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 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmiedel et al. (US 2020/0115657 A1.
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-11 and 20, Schmiedel teaches a unit dose detergent product for textile treatment (i.e. washing) disposed in a pouch (abstract, 4-5, 261-262) made of a water soluble polyvinyl alcohol film (instant claim 20) comprising water in amount of 20% or less; [261, 266, 185], surfactants such as anionic, nonionic, amphoteric, cationic (instant claim 5) in total amounts of 10-70%; [63-64, 67-68], natural fatty acid salts (coconut or lauric acid soaps); [72-73], wherein the pH of composition (instant claim 10-11) is in alkaline range such as 8.5; [page 22: Table]. Composition comprises amino acids (instant claim 2-4) such as threonine and tryptophan; [210], and anionic surfactants (instant claim 6) such as alkyl sulfate and fatty acid salts; [70, 73]. Furthermore, Schmiedel teaches (instant claim 9) nonionic surfactants of ethylene oxide (EO)-propylene oxide (PO) copolymers; [86].
Regarding claim 1, Schmiedel does not teach, expressly, the instantly claimed amount of fatty acid salt (or soap) but teaches the total amount of anionic surfactants as 10-40%; [66]. Consequently, by selecting only about 10% of fatty acid salt, within total anionic surfactant the instantly claimed amount of soap will be rendered obvious. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to select the instantly claimed amount, construed as an ordinary laboratory experimentation (not imparting patentability) with the motivation of making a synergistic combination detersive anionic surfactant for improves textile treatment results.
Regarding claims 12-15, Schmiedel teaches bases (alkalinity sources) such as NaOH, and sodium carbonate; [146, 315], non-aqueous solvents such as ethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol and ethanol; [309], enzymes, anti-redeposition, and bittering agents; [129, 133, 201-203]. Please note that claim 15’s limitations are already addressed in the previous claims and thus not repeated.
Regarding claims 18-19, Lant does not teach the chlorine scavenging property of composition in a given amount of time and volume of a liter of water. The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties (chlorine scavenging rate, ppm/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. measured chlorine scavenging rate , would expectedly 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].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmiedel et al. (US 2020/0115657 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lant et al. (EP 3173467 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Schmiedel do teach the cationic surfactants (63) but it does not recite their name(s). However the analogous art of Lant (water soluble pouch containing fabric treatment detergent 2, 8, 12) teaches cationic surfactants such as coco-dimethyl amine oxide and fatty quaternary ammonium compound; [50, 81-82], and zwitterionic surfactant such as betaines, i.e. alkyl betaine; [49, 51]. 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 cationic and zwitterionic surfactants of Lant for Schmiedel’s composition with the motivation of adding their disinfecting and stabilizing properties (please see any chemistry text-book reference), as taught by Lant above.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmiedel et al. (US 2020/0115657 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Siklosi et al. (WO 1991/17332 A1).
Regarding claims 16-17, As already stated in above claims; Schmiedel teaches 20% or less water; [185], surfactants such as alcoholethoxylate and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate in amounts of 25-65%; [63-64, 67-68, 87, claim 4], and coco fatty acid; [73], a base such as NaOH and monoethanol amine; [146, 315], non-aqueous solvents such as glycerin, propylene glycol; [309] and amino acid such as threonine; [210]. Schmiedel does not teach the amino acid of lysine. However, the analogous art of Siklosi teaches a laundry detergent composition (abstract) comprising amino acid such as lysine; [6, 1-5]. 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 (or substitute for threonine) the lysine of Siklosi to Schmiedel’s composition as a complete functional equivalent amino acid taught by both Schmiedel and Siklosi above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on new reference and its further combinations applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
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 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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
2026/08/20
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights