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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker et al, US 2016/0355762.
Brooker et al, US 2016/0355762, discloses a compacted liquid laundry detergent composition comprising 0.001-5% by weight of a fragrance, 5-40% by weight of an alcohol, 10-30% by weight of a non-amine neutralized linear alkylbenzene sulphonate, less than 5% by weight of a hydroxyl-containing amine, and 0.5-15% by weight of water (see abstract and paragraphs 6-11). It is further taught by Brooker et al that the non-amine neutralized linear alkylbenzene sulphonate contains 10-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain and is neutralized by sodium (see paragraphs 36-41), that the composition additionally contains 10% by weight or less of a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 9-15 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain (see paragraphs 42-43 and Composition B in Table 1), that additional anionic surfactants are optional (see paragraph 55), that the composition contains 0.1-30% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, such as an alcohol ethoxylate (see paragraphs 63-68), adjunct ingredients, such as enzymes in an amount of at least 0.11% by weight (see paragraph 81 and Composition B in Table 1), that the composition is contained in a water-soluble unit dose article that is used in a process to wash laundry (see paragraphs 82-94 and 97), and that the composition is made by mixing the components (see paragraphs 95-96 and 98-108), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Compositions A and B in Table 1.
Although Brooker et al generally discloses a composition containing a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 9-15 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain, the reference does not require such compositions containing this component with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a composition, as taught by Brooker et al, which contained a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 9-15 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain, because such compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Brooker et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a composition containing a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 9-15 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain is expressly suggested by the Brooker et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souter et al, US 2016/0355767.
Souter et al, US 2016/0355767, discloses a compacted liquid laundry detergent composition comprising 0.5-15% by weight of a solid enzyme particle (see abstract and paragraph 11). It is further taught by Souter et al that suitable enzymes include protease (see paragraph 43), that the composition contains 0.1-30% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, such as an alcohol ethoxylate (see paragraphs 86-92), that the composition contains 10-30% by weight of a non-amine neutralized linear alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 10-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain and is neutralized with sodium (see paragraphs 100-102), that the composition contains a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 10-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain (see paragraph 103 and Table 1), that additional anionic surfactants are optional (see paragraph 104), that the composition is contained in a water-soluble unit dose article that is used in a process to wash laundry (see paragraphs 124-136 and 139), and that the composition is made by mixing the components (see paragraphs 137 and 140-147), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Compositions A-C in Table 1.
Although Souter et al generally discloses a composition containing a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 10-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain, the reference does not require such compositions containing this component with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a composition, as taught by Souter et al, which contained a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 10-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain, because such compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Souter et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a composition containing a monoethanolamine neutralized alkylbenzene sulfonate that contains 10-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain is expressly suggested by the Souter et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
February 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights