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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backer et al (WO 2020/005516), as cited in IDS filed, in view of Willey et al (WO93/06202).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Backer et al teaches automatic dishwashing composition, comprises: a builder; a phosphonate; a nonionic surfactant; and a dispersant polymer comprising: (a) 60 to < 90 wt% of structural units of formula I, wherein each R1 is independently selected from a hydrogen and a -CH3 group; and (b) > 10 to 40 wt% of structural units of formula II, wherein each R2 is independently selected from a -C2-3 alkyl group and wherein each R3 is independently selected from a hydrogen and a methyl group (see [0006]). Backer further teaches the dispersant polymer contain < 0.0001 wt%; most preferably, < the detectable limit of structural units of sulfonated monomer (see [0034]). Therefore, the polymer can be either non-sulfonated or sulfonated.
Baker et al does not teach the composition also comprising a poly(glutamic acid).
Willey et al teaches poly(glutamic acid) can be used in cleaning compositions as a dispersing, soil-suspending or anti-redeposition agent (see abstract). Willey et al teaches the effects occurs in compositions with non-ionic surfactants (bridge pages 1-2). Willey et also teaches the composition contains detergent builders such as phosphonates (page 15, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the following reasons. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add poly(glutamic acid) to the composition taught by Backer et al in order to make the composition have enhanced dispersing and soil suspending properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve this predictable result because both Backer et al and Willey et al teach cleaning compositions with nonionic surfactants and phosponates. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, Baker et al teaches the composition contains 0 wt% of builders selected from the group consisting of nitrilotriacetic acid; ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid; glycine-N,N-diacetic acid; methyl glycine-N,N-diacetic acid; 2-hydroxyethyliminodiacetic acid; glutamic acid-N,N-diacetic acid; 3-hydroxy-2,2’-iminodissuccinate (see [0040]).
Regarding claims 7-9, Baker et al teaches the composition further comprises an additive, wherein the additive is selected from the group consisting of a bleaching agent, a bleach activator, an enzyme, a filler and mixtures thereof (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Backer et al teaches a method of cleaning a plastic article in an automatic dishwashing machine, comprising: (A) selecting the automatic dishwashing composition (B) providing a plastic article; and, (C) applying the automatic dishwashing composition to the plastic article (see [0007-0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW whose telephone number is (571)272-2817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8-5.
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.
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761