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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction and clarification of the following is required: Claim 4 recites that the sequestrant is 1-hydroxymethylene (1.1 diphosphonic acid)(sic), however, this sequestrant is not disclosed in the specification. Did Applicant mean to recite this specific sequestrant, or did Applicant mean “1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1,-diphosphonic acid,” i.e., HEDP or Dequest 2010, which is the preferred sequestrant as disclosed on page 3, line 6 of the specification and Example on page 29? For prior art purposes, the sequestrant will be taken to mean “1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid,” i.e., HEDP or Dequest 2010.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that “(AE)” be added after “alcohol ethoxylate” (first occurrence) to provide clear support for “AE” in line 4
b) in claim 4, line 2, the portion “1.1” should read as “1,1”
c) in claim 5, line 2, the phrase “comprising 0.2 to 10wt% of the composition cleaning polymer” should be replaced with “comprising 0.2 to 10wt% of the composition of a cleaning polymer.” 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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
In claim 1, line 4, “10%” and “5%” are missing units of measurement, presumably “wt.”
Claims 2-12, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as above.
In addition, in each of claims 2-12, “Composition” (see line 1 of each claim) lacks support with respect to claim 1, or ultimately from claim 1. It is suggested that “composition” be added after “detergent” in claim 1, line 1 and claims 2-12 be amended in part with “The composition . . .” in line 1 of each claim.
Also, claim 7 lacks a unit of measurement for the linear alkyl benzene sulphonate. Presumably, “wt.” is missing after “20%” in line 2.
Also, regarding claims 9, 11 and 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 9, 11 and 12 recite broad range/limitation and narrower statement of the range/limitation preceded by “preferably” and/or “most preferably” (in claim 9, see line 3; in claim 11, see lines 3-4; in claim 12, see line 4). The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (US 2021/0371773), hereinafter “Brandt.”
Regarding claim 1, Brandt teaches formulations comprising glucolipids (see abstract) to provide biobased compositions (see ¶ [0006]) and the formulations comprising glucolipids comprise at least one further surfactant, preferably mixtures of anionic and nonionic surfactants (see ¶ 0048]). In one example formulation, Brandt teaches a liquid detergent which comprises 30.0 wt% Glucolipid, 4.0 wt% linear sodium alkylbenzenesulphonate (anionic surfactant), 5.0 wt% fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) (nonionic surfactant), 0.5 wt% phosphonates (i.e., phosphorus based sequestrant), sodium hydroxide to pH 8.5, among others, and the remainder is demineralized water (see ¶ [0311] and [0029]). Brandt also teaches one further anionic surfactant like the sulphuric acid monoesters of the straight chain C7-C20 alcohol ethoxylates with 1 to 6 mol of ethylene oxide (see ¶ [0058]), for example, sodium lauryl ether sulphate (see ¶ [0312]). Brandt, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of an alkyl ether sulphate surfactant like sodium lauryl ether sulphate, say in the above liquid detergent formulation; the fatty alcohol and phosphonate being at least partially neutralized by NaOH; and the percentages of the C18, C12 and C14 alky groups in the fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) nonionic surfactant.
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 sodium lauryl ether sulphate, say into the above liquid detergent, because Brandt prefers a formulation comprising glucolipids with a mixture of anionic and nonionic surfactants and the sodium lauryl ether sulphate is one of the suitable selection of anionic surfactants as disclosed in ¶ [0058] and [0312], wherein the resulting mixture of anionic and nonionic surfactants provides effective cleaning power to the biobased composition.
Considering that Brandt teaches the incorporation of NaOH in the above liquid detergent, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the NaOH to not only provide the required pH, but also partially neutralize the fatty alcohol ethoxylate and the phosphonate.
With regards to the weight percentages of the C18, C12 and C14 alkyl groups in the fatty alcohol ethoxylate, considering that Brandt teaches fatty alcohol ethoxylate C12-18 (7 EO), which is understood that the fatty alcohol ethoxylate comprises a mixture of C12-18 alkyl groups, e.g., C12, C14, C16, C18, while Brandt is silent as to the specific proportions of each of the C18, C12 and C14 alkyl groups in the fatty alcohol ethoxylate C12-18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the C18, C12 and C14 to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the C18, C12 and C14 alkyl groups in the fatty alcohol ethoxylate C12-18 (7EO) through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 2, Brandt, as discussed above, teaches a liquid detergent which comprises 5.0 wt% fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) (nonionic surfactant), among others, (see ¶ [0311]). Brandt, however, fails to disclose at least 10% wt of the alcohol ethoxylate surfactant is C18 alkyl.
Considering that Brandt teaches fatty alcohol ethoxylate C12-18 (7 EO), which is understood that the fatty alcohol ethoxylate comprises a mixture of C12-18 alkyl groups, e.g., C12, C14, C16, C18, while Brandt is silent as to the specific proportions of the C18 alkyl groups in the fatty alcohol ethoxylate C12-18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of C18 to be non-critical, which means that the proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the C18 alkyl group in the fatty alcohol ethoxylate C12-18 (7EO) through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 3, Brandt teaches that the above liquid detergent further comprises 1.0 wt% fatty acid (see ¶ [0311] and [0029]). Brandt, however, fails to disclose 0.5 wt% fatty acid.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (i.e., 0.5 wt% fatty acid in the instant claim vs 1.0 wt% fatty acid in Brandt) 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.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Brandt teaches that the liquid detergent comprises 4.0 wt% linear sodium alkylbenzenesulphonate, among others (see ¶ [0311] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Brandt teaches that the above liquid detergent comprises 1.0 wt% protease enzyme (see ¶ [0311] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Brandt teaches that the above liquid detergent comprises fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) (see ¶ [0311]).
Regarding claim 10, Brandt teaches the features as discussed above. Brandt, however, fails to disclose the liquid detergent having a viscosity of from 200 to 600 mPa.s.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the liquid detergent of Brandt to exhibit a viscosity within those recited because similar composition having similar ingredients have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly.
Regarding claim 11, Brandt, as discussed above, teaches a liquid detergent which comprises 5.0 wt% fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) (nonionic surfactant), among others, (see ¶ [0311]) and also teaches other suitable anionic surfactants like the sulphuric acid monoesters of the straight chain C7-C20 alcohol ethoxylates with 1 to 6 mol of ethylene oxide (see ¶ [0058]), i.e., alkyl ether sulphate. In addition, Brandt teaches that these surfactants are used in the composition in amounts of from 1 to 5% by weight (see ¶ [0058]). Brandt, however, fails to disclose the weight ratio of alcohol ethoxylate surfactant to alkyl ether sulphate surfactant from 0.5 to 2.
Considering that Brandt teaches 5.0 wt% fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO), and from 1 to 5 wt% alkyl ether sulphate, as discussed above, 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 wt% fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) and 5 wt% alkyl ether sulphate, hence 1:1 weight ratio, or simply 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 12, Brandt, as discussed above, teaches a liquid detergent which comprises 5.0 wt% fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) and 4.0 wt% linear sodium alkylbenzenesulphonate (see ¶ [0311]). Hence, the weight ratio of the fatty alcohol ethoxylates C12-18 (7 EO) to the linear sodium alkylbenzenesulphonate is 5:4 or 1.25:1 or simply, 1.25.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-12 above, and further in view of Giles (US 2013/0288944).
Regarding claim 4, Brandt teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Brandt teaches a liquid detergent which comprises 0.5 wt% phosphonates (i.e., phosphorus based sequestrant), among others (see ¶ [0311] and [0029]). Brandt, however, fails to disclose 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid as the specific phosphonate.
Giles, an analogous art, teaches that 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) is a well known chelating agent in laundry and automatic dishwashing formulations which is an effective sequestrant of calcium and magnesium ions (see ¶ [0002]-[0003]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) as the specific phosphonate in Brandt because HEDP is a well known chelating agent which is an effective sequestrant of calcium and magnesium ions as taught by Giles.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-12 above, and further in view of Green et al. (US 2019/0119607), hereinafter “Greene.”
Regarding claims 5-6, Brandt teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Brandt teaches that the formulations can comprise at least one additional component like care additives, among others (see ¶ [0064]). Brandt, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of a cleaning polymer in an amount from 0.2 to 10 wt% as recited in claim 5, and the polymer being a polyester soil release polymer as recited in claim 6.
Greene, an analogous art, teaches a laundry liquid composition which comprises a polyester anionic soil release polymer (see abstract and ¶ [0015]) in a preferred range from 0.1 to 5 wt% to produce good soil release characteristics in a cost-effective manner, using relatively small amounts (see ¶ [0036]), for example, 0.5 wt% (see Table 1 in ¶ [0088]).
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 the liquid detergent of Brandt in an amount of 0.5 wt% because this will produce good soil release characteristics in a cost-effective manner, using relatively small amounts as taught by Green.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those 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