Claims 17-31 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2 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.
3 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.
Claims 17, 19-23, 25-26 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (EP 3744821 A1). English translation of the Patent No. (EP 3744821 A1) is used in this Office action.
Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) teaches a composition for dishwashing and machine dishwashing detergent comprising a compound of the following formula (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
214
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Which is identical to the claimed formula (I), when in the reference’s formula (II), R6, R7 and R8 are each alkyl group of C7-C24 and q, r and s are each from 1 to 200, wherein the average number of q, r and s is 3 which is greater than 2, and when in the claimed formula (I), X1 is -C(=O)-R1, X2 is -C(C=O)-R2 and X3 is -C(C=O)-R3 wherein each R1, R2 and R3 is alkyl group of C7-C24 and wherein m, n and o are each from 1 to 200 as claimed in claim 17 (see claim 31 in the patent No. (EP’ 821 A1) and English translation claim 31), wherein the dishwashing composition also comprises nonionic surfactants include fatty alcohol alkoxylates of the following formula (IX):
PNG
media_image2.png
76
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Which is identical to the claimed formula (XI), when in the reference’s formula (IX), Ra is alkyl group of C8 to C30 and A is -C2H4- and -C3H6- and x stands for a number from 1 to 150 and Y is branched alkyl group having 1 to 30 carbon atoms as claimed in claims 17 and 26 (see page 11, paragraph, 0114 in the patent No. (EP’ 821 A1) and English translation, page 48), wherein, the dishwashing composition also comprises enzymes include proteases, lipases and cellulases as claimed in claim 29 (see English translation of the Patent No. (EP’ 821 A1), page 45, paragraph, 9). Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) also teaches a method for cleaning dishes in a dishwasher with alkaline composition having a pH of 8 or higher as claimed in claims 30 and 31 (see English translation of the Patent No. (EP’ 821 A1), page 54, paragraphs, 4-5). Further, claims 19-23 are product by process and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (see MPEP 2113). In this case the claimed product (component (ZI) in the product-by-process claims, is the same as the product of the prior art of record (EP’ 821 A1). Therefore, claims 19-23 are unpatentable. Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) teaches a compound of a formula (II), identical to the claimed formula (I), which inherently should have same hydroxyl value as claimed in claim 25. Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4 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 24, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (EP 3744821 A1) in view of Benson et al. (WO 2021078807 A1). English translation of the Patent No. (EP 3744821 A1) is used in this Office action.
Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) teaches a composition for dishwashing and machine dishwashing detergent comprising a compound of the following formula (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
214
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And a formula (IX):
PNG
media_image2.png
76
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Which are similar to the claimed formulae (I) and (XI) (see claim 31 in the patent No. (EP’ 821 A1) and English translation claim 31 and page 11, paragraph, 0114 in the patent No. (EP’ 821 A1) and English translation, page 48).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of the reference Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) by reciting the amounts and the ratios between the claimed components (Z1) and (Z2) as claimed in claims 24 and 27-28.
Benson et al. (WO’ 807 A1) in analogous art of a dishwashing detergent formulation, teaches a detergent composition comprising a mixture of nonionic surfactants include glycerol triester ethoxylate having a formula (I), which is similar to the claimed formula (I) as claimed in claim 17 (see page 13, lines 5-16, formula (I), and fatty alcohol ethoxylate Non surfactant having a formula (XI-a) which is similar to the claimed formula (XI) as claimed in claim 17 (see 9, lines 19-32), wherein the nonionic surfactants in the detergent composition in an amount ranging from 10 to 300 wt.% (see 88, claim 15).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Benson et al. (WO’ 807 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amounts and the ratio between the nonionic surfactants in the detergent composition in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the detergent composition and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a detergent composition to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
5 Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (EP 3744821 A1) in view of Gordon et al. (US 6369019 B1).
The disclosure of Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) as described above, does not teach polyethylene glycol diesters of the claimed formula (XV) as claimed in claim 18.
Gordon et al. (US’ 019 B1) in other analogous art of a cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising polyethylene glycol diesters having the following formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
78
158
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Which is similar to the claimed formula (XV), when in the reference’s formula, R1 and R2 are alkyl groups having from 1 to 36 carbon atoms and n is an integer of from 10 to 400 as claimed in claim 18 (see col. 3, lines 1-14).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Gordon et al. (US’ 019 B1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the detergent composition of Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1) by incorporating polyethylene glycol diesters as taught by Gordon et al. (US’ 019 B1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of polyethylene glycol diesters as taught by Gordon et al. (US’ 019 B1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous composition taught by Guo et al. (EP’ 821 A1), absent unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761