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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending. Claim 20 has been canceled. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed April 4, 2024, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed April 4, 2024, and October 16, 2024, fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Note that, a line has been drawn through the corresponding references which have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a dishwashing detergent, classified in C11D; 3/30.
II. Claims 19 and 21, drawn to a method of cleaning articles having red or yellow soiling, classified in B08B; 3/08.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product of Group I can be used in a materially different process such as in a method of cleaning textiles/laundry.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
1) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
2) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
3) The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
4) The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with M. Susan Spiering on June 9, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 2, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant “and/or” and insert “and”.
With respect to instant claim 7, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “(monohydrate and tetrahydrate)”.
With respect to instant claim 13, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “contains” and inserts “comprises”.
With respect to instant claim 17, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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 1-5, 7-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barreleiro et al (US 2018/0187130).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Barreleiro et al teach granulates
Comprising a) one or more sulfonimines and/or one or more quaternary iminium salts, and b) one or more acids which are solid at 25° C. Note that, Barreleiro et al teach sulfoimines which are the same as recited by the instant claims. See paras. 16-29. Barreleiro et al preferably also relates to granulates comprising besides components a) and b) described above a bleach activator as component c). Bleach activators that can be used in the granulates of the invention are, for example, polyacylated alkylenediamines, in particular tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED),
acylated triazine derivatives, in particular 1,5-diacetyl-2,4-dioxohexahydro-1 ,3,5-triazine (DADHT), acylated glycolurils, in particular tetraacetylglycoluril (TAGU), etc. See paras. 64-66. A binder as component d) may be used, a siccative agent may be used as component e), a coating may be used a component f). Suitable coating agents include methyl cellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxymethylpropyl cellulose, etc. Suitable binders include are selected from alcohol alkoxylates and from polymers
without acidic groups. Among the polymers without acidic groups, synthetic and natural polymers are understood as well as modified polymers of natural origin, which have no
acidic groups, such as carboxylic groups or sulfonate groups. See paras. 71-82.
Preferably the granulates of the invention contain,
relative to their overall weight, a) 2 to 12% by weight of one or more sulfoimine bleach
catalysts of formulae IV, V or VII, b) 0.2 to 5% by weight of citric acid, ascorbic
acid or oxalic acid, c) 40 to 80% by weight of one or more bleach
activators selected from the group of TAED, NOBS or DOBA, d) 15 to 55% by weight of one or more non-acid binders, and e) 2 to 20% by weight siccatives. The coating may be used in amounts from 0.5% to 10% by weight of the granulate. See paras. 95-108. Particularly preferred washing and cleaning compositions, in particular dishwasher detergents, incorporate i) 15 to 65 wt %, preferably 20 to 60 wt% of a water-soluble builder component, ii) 5 to 25 wt %, preferably 8 to 17 wt %, of a peroxygen compound, iii) 0.5 to 6 wt % of a granulate of the invention, and iv) 0 to 50 wt% of further components such as enzymes, alkali carriers, surface active agents, pH regulators, organic solvents, glass corrosion inhibitors, silver corrosion inhibitors and foam regulators, all relative to the overall weight of the washing and cleaning composition. A composition of this type is specifically of low alkalinity, i.e., its 1 weight percent solution has a pH in the range of 8 to 11.5, preferably of 9 to 11.
Suitable builders include polacrylic acid, citric acid, sodium citrate, MGDA, GLDA, etc. Enzymes such as proteases, amylases, lipases, etc., may be used in amounts from 0.05% to 10% by weight. See paras. 120-134. Low-sudsing nonionic surfactants, added for better detachment of greasy stains, as wetting agents and possibly as granulation assistants in the manufacture of these compositions may be used. Their amount may be up to 20 wt %, preferably up to 10 wt %, and more preferably is in the range from 0.5 to 5 wt %, in each case referring to the total amount of the washing and cleaning composition. Dishwasher detergents in particular typically utilize extremely low-foam compounds. These preferablyinclude C12-C18 alkyl polyethylene glycol polypropylene glycol ethers each containing up to 8 mols of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide units in the molecule. However, it is also possible to use other renowned low-foam nonionic surfactants, for example C12-C18 alkyl polyethylene glycol polybutylene glycol ethers each containing up to 8 mol of ethylene oxide and butylene oxide units in the molecule, end capped alkyl polyalkylene glycol mixed ethers and also the admittedly sudsing, but ecologically attractive C8-C14 alkylpolyglucosides having a degree of polymerization of about 1 to 4 and/or C12-C14 alkyl polyethylene glycols having 3 to 8 ethylene oxide units in the molecule. See paras.137-138. To establish a desired pH when not automatically resulting from mixing the other components, the washing and cleaning compositions of the present invention, in particular the dishwasher detergents, may incorporate system-compatible and environmentally bases, in particular ammonium hydroxide or alkali metal hydroxides. The level of pH regulators of this type in the washing and cleaning compositions of the present invention, in particular thedishwasher detergents, preferably does not exceed 10 wt % and more preferably is in the range from 0.5 to 6 wt %, in each case referring to the total amount of the washing and cleaning composition. See para.139. Preferred peroxygen compounds for use in the washing and cleaning compositions of the present invention, in particular the dishwasher detergents, include in principle any are perborates and percarbonates, in particular the corresponding sodium salts thereof. See para. 133. To inhibit glass corrosion during the wash cycle, the washing and cleaning compositions of the present invention, in particular the dishwasher detergents, may incorporate glass corrosion inhibitors. Crystalline layered silicates and/or zinc salts are particularly advantageous here. Crystalline layered silicates are available for example from Clariant under the trade name of Na-SKS, e.g. Na-SKS-1
(Na2 Si22O4 s-xH2O, kenyaite), etc. The dishwasher detergents, incorporate the crystalline layeredsilicate at preferably 0.1 to 20 wt %, more preferably 0.2 to 15 wt % and more preferably 0.4 to 10 wt %, all relative to the overall weight of the composition. See paras.141-142. Additionally, the compositions may contain dyes, fragrances, foam-suppressing compounds such as silicone oil, paraffins, silver corrosion inhibitors, etc. See paras. 145-148.
Barreleiro et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a builder, a bleach activator, a nonionic surfactant, an oxygen-containing bleaching agent, a pH regulator, a sulfonimine bleach catalyst, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a builder, a bleach activator, a nonionic surfactant, an oxygen-containing bleaching agent, a pH regulator, a sulfonimine bleach catalyst, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Barreleiro et al suggest a composition containing a builder, a bleach activator, a nonionic surfactant, an oxygen-containing bleaching agent, a pH regulator, a sulfonimine bleach catalyst, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barreleiro et al (US 2018/0187130) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Morschhauser et al (US 2021/0277333).
Barreleiro et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Barreleiro et al do not teach the use of a binder such as carboxymethylcellulose in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Morschhauser et al teach cogranules coated with cellulose ether and containing a cyclic sulfonimine, a bleach activator, and a cellulose ether as a binder. See Abstract. Suitable binders include carboxymethylcellulose, ethyl cellulose, etc. See paras. 41-45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use carboxymethyl cellulose as a binder in the composition taught by Barreleiro et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Morschhauser et al teach the use of carboxymethylcellulose as a binder in a similar composition and further, Barreleiro et al teach the use of binders in general.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barreleiro et al (US 2018/0187130) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17 above, and further in view of WO2020/043844.
Barreleiro et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Barreleiro et al do not teach the use of an ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘844 teaches an improved automatic dishwashing product. See page 1. Surfactants may be used in the composition and suitable nonionic surfactants include ethoxylated nonionic surfactants which are products of alcohols having from 6 to 20 carbon atoms and preferably 12 moles of ethylene oxide, etc. See page 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an ethoxylated alcohol having, for example,12 carbon atoms in the composition taught by Balleleiro et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because ‘844 teaches the use of an ethoxylated alcohol having, for example, 12 carbon atoms as a nonionic surfactant and further, Balleleiro et al teach the use of nonionic surfactants in general.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights