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 .
Abstract of the Disclosure
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
a) it need not recite the phrase “The invention concerns” in line 1 of the paragraph
b) “alignin” in line 1 of the paragraph should be replaced with “a lignin”
c) it is suggested that “, preferably (1): Formula (1) or, Formula (2)” in line 2 of the paragraph be deleted
d) the structural formula of structure (1) and (2) are missing below the phrase “the following structure (1) or (2)” in line 2 of the paragraph. Please note that the structural formula (1) and (2) are printed above the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 1:
i) line 2, it is suggested that “a)” before “from 0.5 to 40 wt.%” be deleted
ii) line 7 (counting the formula as one line), the phrase “counterion, selected from”
should be replaced with “counterion selected from”
b) in claim 7, line 6, the semicolon (;) after “biosurfactants” should be deleted
c) in claim 12, line 6, the phrase “of the invention” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “for example,” i.e., “(e.g. rhamnolipids)” in line 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase, and also inside the parentheses, are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In addition, in line 8, “APGs” is an acronym and should be spelled out.
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.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11-12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kropf et al. (US 2018/0155653), hereinafter “Kropf.”
Regarding claim 1, Kropf teaches a washing or cleaning agent, i.e., detergent composition, comprising 1 wt% to 99 wt% of an anionic surfactant of general formula (I),
PNG
media_image1.png
182
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear or branched alkyl residue having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, R2 (which corresponds to R1 of instant claim 1) denotes CH3, and M denotes an alkali metal (see claims 3-4) and wherein the alkali metal or M is Na or sodium (see ¶ [0058]). Kropf, however, fails to specifically disclose the anionic surfactant having structure (1), i.e.,
PNG
media_image2.png
180
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the R1 and R2 added together contain from 5 to 15 carbon atoms, and the cleaning agent or detergent composition comprising from 0.5 to 40 wt% of the anionic surfactant as recited in claim 1.
As seen above, the anionic surfactant of general formula (I) in Kropf, in particular when R1 and R2 together contain 7 to 15 carbon atoms, and the anionic surfactant having structure (1) in instant claim 1, also shown above, are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus), hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because position isomers are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.) See also In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979); In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.09 I and II.
Regarding the total R1 and R2, and the amount of the anionic surfactant, considering that Kropf teaches that R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear alkyl residue having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and R2 (which corresponds to R1 of instant claim 1) denotes CH3 (see claim 3), and the detergent composition comprises from 1 wt% to 99 wt% of the anionic surfactant of general formula (I), 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., the total R1 and R2 is 7-15 carbona atoms, and 1-40 wt% anionic surfactant) 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 2, as discussed above, Kropf teaches that R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear alkyl residue having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and R2 (which corresponds to R1 of instant claim 1) denotes CH3 (see claim 3), hence, R1 and R2 are linear.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, as discussed above, Kropf teaches that R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear alkyl residue having 6 to 20 carbon atoms (see claim 3). Kropf, however, fails to specifically disclose 1 to 8, or 1 to 7 carbon atoms as recited in claims 4 and 18, respectively.
Considering that Kropf teaches that R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear alkyl residue having 6 to 20 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., 6-8 or 6-7 carbon atoms) 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 6 and 20, with respect to the total R1 and R2, as discussed above, considering that Kropf teaches that R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear alkyl residue having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and R2 (which corresponds to R1 of instant claim 1) denotes CH3 (see claim 3), 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., the total R1 and R2 is 9-15, or 11-15 carbon atoms) 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 7, Kropf also teaches that the agent can comprise non-ionic surfactants which include alkoxylated fatty alcohols and alkylpolyglucosides (see ¶ [0014]), in an amount from 1 wt.% to 20 wt.% based on the total washing agent (see ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Kropf also teaches that the agent can comprise anionic surfactants like alkylbenzene sulfonates, fatty alcohol ether sulfates or fatty acid soaps (see ¶ [0016]-[0021]), in an amount from 1 wt.% to 25 wt.% based on the total washing agent (see ¶ [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Kropf also teaches that the washing or cleaning agent is a laundry cleaning agent (see ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, Kropf also teaches that the agent can comprise enzymes like lipases, proteases, amylases, cellulases, or peroxidases and are present in the washing or cleaning agent in amounts up to 5 wt.%, in particular from 0.002 wt.% to 4 wt.% (see ¶ [0031]). Kropf, however, fails to specifically disclose from 0.0001 wt% to 0.1 wt.% of the enzyme.
Considering that Kropf teaches enzymes like proteases in amounts up to 5 wt.%, in particular from 0.002 wt.% to 4 wt.%, 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., 0.0001 to 0.1 wt.%) 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 15, as discussed above, Kropf teaches that R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear alkyl residue having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and R2 (which corresponds to R1 of instant claim 1) denotes CH3 , also an alkyl group (see claim 3). Regarding claim 19, as discussed above, Kropf teaches that R1 (which corresponds to R2 of instant claim 1) denotes a linear alkyl residue having 6 to 20 carbon atoms (see claim 3). Kropf, however, fails to specifically disclose from 1 to 5 carbon atoms.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (i.e., 5 carbon atoms in instant claim 19 vs 6 carbon atoms of Kropf) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kropf as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11-12, 15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Tantawy et al. (US 2016/0289616), hereinafter “Tantawy.”
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13-14, Kropf teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Kropf teaches that the washing or cleaning agent can comprise further ingredients that further improve the application-related and/or aesthetic properties of the agent (see ¶ [0012]). Kropf also teaches that the washing or cleaning agent is a laundry cleaning agent (see ¶ [0010]) and is used in a washing machine (see ¶ [0054]). Kropf, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of a soil release polymer in an amount from 0.5 to 15 wt% as recited in claim 9, and the soil release polymer being a polyester soil release polymer as recited in claim 10; a method of treating a textile which comprises treating a textile with an aqueous solution of 0.5 to 20 g/L of the detergent composition as recited in claim 13; and the method occurs at wash water temperature of 280 to 335K (equivalent to 6.85oC to 61.85oC) as recited in claim 14.
Tantawy, an analogous art, teaches a laundry detergent composition which comprises from 0 wt% to 4 wt% polyester soil release polymer (see Table on page 10) for the known use of reducing soil deposition onto fabric during wash; and also teaches a method of laundering fabric or textile which comprises the step of contacting the composition to water to form a wash liquor and laundering fabric in said wash liquor having a temperature of above 0oC to 90oC (equivalent to 273K to 363K), or to 60oC (equivalent to 333K), and the concentration of the laundry detergent composition in the wash liquor is from 0.5 g/l to 10g/l (see ¶ [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a polyester soil release polymer in its optimum proportion into the washing or cleaning agent of Kropf because Kropf specifically desires further ingredients that further improve the application-related properties of the agent, and the polyester soil release polymer would reduce soil deposition onto fabric during wash as taught by Tantawy. With regards to the specific amount of the polyester soil release polymer, considering that Tantawy teaches from 0 wt% to 4 wt% polyester soil release polymer, 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., 0.5-4 wt%) 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).
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the washing or cleaning agent of Kropf in a washing machine by contacting fabric or textile with a wash liquor of 0.5 g/l to 10g/l of the washing or cleaning agent, the wash liquor having an optimum temperature because this is a known laundering method as taught by Tantawy. With respect to the specific temperature of the wash liquor, considering that Tantawy teaches a wash liquor having a temperature of above 0oC to 90oC (equivalent to 273K to 363K), 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., 280 to 335K) 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kropf, the closest prior art, teaches a washing or cleaning agent comprising an anionic surfactant of general formula (I), as shown above (which is a position isomer of the structure (1) of instant claim 1), wherein R2 (which corresponds to R1 of instant claim 1) denotes CH3, i.e., only 1 carbon atom (see claim 3). The present claims 3, 5, 16 and 17, however, require R1 having 5-14, 8-12 or 5-12 carbon atoms. Hence, the R1 =CH3 in Kropf is outside of the claimed ranges of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference is considered cumulative to or less material than the prior art discussed above.
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