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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant et al. (EP 3173467 A1) in view of Siklosi et al. (WO 1991/017332 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5-9 and 20, Lent teaches an pouch made from a water-soluble (instant claim 17) polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) film; [¶.20: 50-55, ¶.28], comprising water in amount of 0.5-20 % ; [9], detergent composition (instant claims 5-7) of anionic surfactants such as alkylbenzene sulfonate; [4, 11], cationic surfactants such as (instant claim 7) fatty quaternary ammonium compound, coco dimethylamine oxide; [50, 81-82, 130], and betaine (instant claim 8); [49, 51], and nonionic surfactants (instant claims 9, 17) such as fatty alcohol alkoxylate and alkyl phenol ethoxylate; [43, 45], wherein the composition is disposed inside the pouch; [11, 162-163].
Regarding claims 1-4, Lent does not teach the amino acid (even though it teaches polyamino acid as a water soluble pouch or encapsulating material; 10). However the analogous art of Siklosi teaches a laundry detergent composition (abstract) comprising amino-acid such as lysine; [6, 1-7]. 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 lysine of Siklosi to Lant’s composition with the motivation of disinfection adding its disinfecting properties (damaging bacterial wall cells; please see any chemistry text-book reference) and also its chlorine scavenging properties, as taught Siklosi above.
Regarding claims 10-13, Lant teaches the pH of composition in the range of 6-9 with an overlapping range thus rendering the claim obvious; [129]. Furthermore, the composition comprises bases such as potassium and sodium hydroxide and carbonate; [106]. Composition comprises non-aqueous solvents such as ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol and propylene glycol; [64].
Regarding claims 14-17, Lant teaches (instant claim 14) additives such as chelating agent; [68, 105], enzymes; [2-3, 7], water (instant claims 15-16) in the amount of 0.5-20%; [9], anionic surfactants such as alkylbenzene sulfonate and nonionic surfactant such as fatty alcohol alkoxylate (C8-18 and ETO=1-7) in amount of 5-60%; [abstract, 3, 4, 11, 43], non-aqueous ethylene, diethylene glycols; [64], and a chelant; [68, 105], sodium hydroxide; [106]. Please not that the amino acid it taught by Siklosi as stated above on claims 1-4 rejection.
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].
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
2026/02/07
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767