DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received May 26, 2026. Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are currently pending.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreilinger et al, US 8,268,334.
Dreilinger et al teach an acidic hard surface cleaner comprising 2.5% lactic acid, 4.43% of a surfactant system comprising 1% alkylpolyglucoside, C14-17 secondary alkyl sulfonate, ethoxylated alcohol, and the balance water wherein the composition has a pH of about 3 (col. 18, example E2). The anionic surfactant may be a secondary alkyl sulfonate, as shown in the examples, or a secondary alkyl sulfate (see claim 1). The alkylpolyglycoside has an alkyl chain length of from 8 to 18 carbon atoms and a degree of polymerization of from 1.1 to 2 as is common in the art (col. 10, lines 30-45).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a secondary alkyl sulfate in place of the secondary alkyl sulfonate in the examples with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as a secondary alkyl sulfate is a preferred anionic surfactant of the invention. The reference teaches that anionic and nonionic surfactants are preferred in amounts as high as 5% each, and the reference also contemplates co-surfactants, including amine oxides, and betaines, which may also be present in amounts as high as 5% (see col. 5, lines 38-43, col. 11, lines 59-64, and col. 12, lines 54-58). The reference contemplates amounts of surfactant at a level of 15% and higher, and persons of skill in the art are well-versed on how much surfactant is required to achieve their objectives.
With respect to claim 3, example E2 above contains 38% anionic surfactant, which satisfies the “about 40%” claimed, and in any event, greater amounts of anionic surfactant are contemplated by the reference as discussed above.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, example E2 contains a single anionic surfactant and when that surfactant is a secondary alkyl sulfate, 100% of the anionic surfactant is secondary alkyl sulfate.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, as secondary alkyl sulfonates and secondary alkyl sulfate are the preferred anionic surfactants of the invention, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of these surfactants in the hard surface cleaner of the reference.
With respect to claims 15-17, betaine surfactants are suitable cosurfactants of the invention and may be present in amounts up to 5% (col. 12, lines 29-59).
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the reference does not teach the amount of surfactant claimed and this is addressed above.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evers et al, US 2010/0323943 alone or in view of Dreilinger et al, US 8,268,334.
Evers et al teach a liquid hand dishwashing composition comprising 0.8% chelant, 22% of a surfactant system comprising 3% alkylpolyglucoside, 12% C12-13 alkyl ethoxy sulfate with a degree of branching of 24%, 1% paraffin sulfonate, 6% amine oxide, and the balance water (¶89, example 18), wherein the alkyl ethoxy sulfate may have a degree of ethoxylation as low as zero and so would be a branched alkyl sulfate, and these compositions may have a pH as low as 3 (¶80). Suitable chelants of the invention include lactic acid (¶27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a branched alkyl sulfate as the surfactant and lactic acid as the chelant in example 18 with confidence of forming an effective hand dishwashing detergent as these components are taught as suitable by the reference.
With respect to claim 3, example 18 contains 59% anionic surfactant.
With respect to claim 5, example 18 contains 92% branched alkyl sulfate.
With respect to claims 15-17, betaine surfactants are suitable cosurfactants of the invention and may be present in amounts up to 10% (¶36).
With respect to the degree of polymerization of the alkylpolyglucoside, the examiner notes that APG’s with this degree of polymerization are the rule and not the exception. Persons of skill in the art would expect an APG to have this degree of polymerization.
In the alternative, Dreilinger et al are relied upon as set forth above as evidence that APGs have a typical degree of polymerization within the range claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a typical APG well known in the art as taught by Dreilinger et al as the APG used by Evers et al.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights