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 May 29, 2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are pending. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 11-14 are newly added. Claim 1 is currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins et al. (US Patent No. 4,687,592), hereinafter “Collins,” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins as applied to claims 1-2 and 10 above is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
As pointed out by Applicant, item 8 of the non-final office action with respect to claim 5 incorrectly recited the lower limit for the iron and manganese chelating agent. Instead of “about 0.01%”, it should correctly read as “about 0.1%” as disclosed in Collins, col. 9, lines 50-55.
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 1-4, 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Bayati et al. (US 2023/0042669).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6 and 8-14, Al-Bayati teaches an automatic dishwashing composition comprising from 0.1 to 20% by weight of polyepoxysuccinic acid (PESA) or derivatives thereof (see abstract and [0022]); citric acid and/or salt thereof as the primary builder (see [0039]); and from 3 to 25% by weight of non-ionic surfactants (see [0043]). Al-Bayati also teaches that the composition may include from 1 to 5% by weight of one or more enzymes; and it is most preferred that protease and/or amylase enzymes be included in the composition as such enzymes are especially effective in dishwashing detergent compositions (see [0061]). Preferably, and in contrast to compositions known in the art, the composition does not comprise methyl glycine diacetic acid (see [0040]). In one Example, Al-Bayati teaches Composition 3 which comprises 16 wt% trisodium citrate, 24 wt% alkali source (typically a carbonate) (i.e., total builder is 40 wt%), 20 wt% bleach system (i.e., a mixture of a bleaching agent and bleach activator), 4 wt% enzymes (i.e., protease and amylase as discussed above), 6 wt% phosphonate; 15 wt% non-ionic surfactant; and 7 wt% polymer system composed of PESA and acrylic acid-sulphonic acid copolymer (see Table 1 and [0076], [0083]-[0085]). Please note that the above composition does not contain: water (which reads on claim 3), alkyl benzene sulfonates (which reads on claim 4), and methyl glycine diacetic acid (which reads on claims 1 and 11-14) because “less than” includes “0” as the lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ CPA 1974. Al-Bayati also teaches a method of automatic dishwashing comprising providing the composition as defined above to an automatic dishwasher (see claim 10), Al-Bayati, however, fails to specifically disclose the amount of PESA, and the weight of PESA to weight of protease being < 20, say in Composition 3, as recited in claim 1.
Considering that Al-Bayati teaches from 0.1 to 20% by weight of PESA and from 1 to 5% by weight of one or more enzymes like protease 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., 4 wt% PESA and 2 wt% protease, hence, weight ratio is 2) 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).
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail et al. (US 2012/0028876, already cited in IDS dated 05/24/2024), hereinafter “Silvernail.”
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-14, Silvernail teaches a solid detergent composition comprising between about 1% and about 15% by weight of the composition of polyepoxysuccinic acid or polyepoxysuccinic acid salt (see claim 2), between about 20% and about 80% by weight of the composition of a hydratable salt (see claim 3) preferably sodium carbonate (see [0025]), and between about 2% and about 50% by weight of the composition of water (see claim 4), wherein the composition is substantially phosphorus-free (see claim 1). The composition may comprise from between about 0.5% and about 20% by weight of surfactant like nonionic surfactant (see [0033]-[0034]). In Example 1, Silvernail teaches a solid detergent composition which comprises sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium metasilicate, water and polyepoxysuccinic acid sodium salt (see Table on page 4), wherein the composition does not contain iron and manganese chelating agents and alkyl benzene sulfonates, hence, reads on claims 1, 4 and 11-14, because “less than” includes “0” as the lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ CPA 1974. Silvernail also teaches that the solid detergent composition may additionally comprise additional components or agents, such as bleaching agents, activators, enzymes, among others as disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/969,385 (now U.S. Patent No. 7,763,576)), the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety (see [0035]), wherein US ‘576 teaches that the enzymes include proteases, alpha-amylases and mixtures thereof, in an amount of up to approximately 15% by weight or between approximately 0.5% to approximately 10% by weight (see col. 12, lines 45-63 in US ‘576). Silvernail also teaches the use of the solid composition in machine warewashing (see [0039]), wherein it is understood that the composition is applied to a soiled article in the warewashing machine. Silvernail, however, fails to specifically disclose a machine warewashing composition comprising builder like sodium carbonate, nonionic surfactant, PESA and protease in amounts as those recited, and the weight of PESA to weight of protease being < 20 as recited in claim 1, the amount of the protease as recited in claim 2; and the amount of water as recited in claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared a machine warewashing detergent composition comprising builder like sodium carbonate, nonionic surfactant, PESA and protease in their optimum proportions because the teachings of Silvernail encompass these ingredients and proportions thereof.
With regards to the respective proportions of the sodium carbonate, nonionic surfactant, PESA and protease, considering the teachings of Silvernail 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., 20-80 wt% sodium carbonate, 0.5-20wt% nonionic surfactant, 4 wt% PESA and 2 wt% protease, hence, weight ratio of PESA to protease is 2) 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).
With regards to the amount of the water, as the word “about” permits some tolerance (see In re Ayers, 69 USPQ 109, and In re Erickson, 145 USPQ 207), the lower limit of about 2 wt% water in Silvernail may be considered to read on < 2 wt% water in claim 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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