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 the amendment filed on August 3, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 8-9 and 11-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to nonelected species. Claims 1, 6, 10, and withdrawn claims: 8-9, 11-15 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2018/0179469, already of record), hereinafter “Ward.”
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10, Ward teaches an automatic dishwashing cleaning composition comprising an alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant and optionally but preferably a complexing agent, among others (see [0011] and [0017]). The preferred alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant includes alkyl amphoacetate like sodium lauroamphoacetate, or alkyl amphopropionate like sodium capryloamphoproprionate (sic), among others (see [0027]), wherein the sodium lauroamphoacetate meets the structure in claims 1, 5 and claims 6-7, i.e., R1 is C11 and R2 is C2; and wherein the sodium capryloamphopropionate meets the structure in claims 1, 5 and claim 10, i.e., R1 is C7 and R2 is C2. The alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant is preferably present in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10%, more preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight of the composition (see [0029]). Ward also teaches that the preferred complexing agent is the tri-sodium salt of methylglycine-diacetic acid (MGDA) in an amount from about 5 to about 50%, more preferably from about 8 to about 40% by weight of the composition (see [0038]). Ward also teaches that the composition can be presented in unit-dose form, that is, the composition is enveloped by a water-soluble film such as polyvinyl alcohol (see [0124]). The composition preferably has a pH as measured in 1% weight/volume aqueous solution in distilled water at 20° C. of from at least 11, more preferably at least 11.5 (see [0018]), which reads on the pH recited in instant claims 1-2. Ward, however, fails to specifically disclose from 0.001g to 5.0g alkyl aminocarboxylate and greater than about 2.0g MGDA, and the weight ratio of MGDA to alkyl aminocarboxylate which is greater than about 1: 1 as recited in claim 1, or greater than about 2:1 as recited in claim 3.
Considering that Ward teaches from about 5 to about 50% by weight of MGDA, and from 0.5 to 10% by weight of alkyl amphocarboxylate, as discussed above, and presuming the weight of the water-soluble unit dose pouch which encloses the automatic dishwashing cleaning composition is 20 grams, a typical weight of such pouch, the MGDA (5-50 wt%) would weigh from 1 g to 10 g and the alkyl amphocarboxylate (0.5-10 wt%) would weigh from 0.1 g to 2 g, hence, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 5 g MGDA: 1 g alkyl aminocarboxylate, hence, 5:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Ward further teaches that the alkyl group of the alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant comprises from 6 to 24 carbon atoms, preferably from 8 to 16 carbon atoms (see [0026]). Ward, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the alkyl aminocarboxylate has an R1 in the formula of C12-C14 alkyl.
Considering that Ward teaches that the alkyl group of the alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant comprises from 6 to 24 carbon atoms, preferably from 8 to 16 carbon atoms, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., R1 in the formula is C12-C14 alkyl) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 16-18, Ward further teaches that in addition to the alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant, the composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant or a mixture of two or more nonionic surfactants (see [0081]-[0083]).
Regarding claims 19-20, Ward further teaches that the composition preferably comprises a bleach which includes salts of percarbonate like sodium percarbonate (see [0066]-[0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Ward, Applicant argues that Ward does not disclose absolute weights (such as grams) for either methylglycinediacetic acid (MGDA) or the alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant. Applicant also argues the unexpected effect of the combination of the MGDA and the alkyl amphocarboxylate surfactant as shown in Examples A-F, wherein A and F are comparative examples and B-E are Inventive Compositions, and wherein Examples B-E each exhibit a dramatic, unexpected reduction in copper leaching absorbance to as low as 0.01 ± 0.2 (Example D).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because of the same reasons as discussed in paragraph 6 above. The showing in the specification at pages 48-50 have been carefully considered, however, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present claim 1. The showing is only true for the automatic dishwashing composition comprising MGDA and disodium cocoamphodiacetate surfactant in their recited weight ratio, i.e., 20:1 to 50:1 (5/0.25 to 5/0.1), and not true for the generic alkyl aminocarboxylate and broader weight ratio of the MGDA to the alkyl aminocarboxylate of greater than about 1:1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights