DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 50-59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/21/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 31-49 in the reply filed on 4/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the European Examiner did not require restriction during PCT proceedings. This is not found persuasive because, as described in the Requirement for Restriction of 3/19/26, the prior art teaches the shared technical features and therefore these features do not constitute a special technical feature. As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Therefore, because the groups do not share a special technical feature, there is no unity of invention and the inventions may be restriction for examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 45 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.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the metal salt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 31-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (US 2019/0136152, “Weber”).
Regarding claim 31, Weber teaches a water soluble graft polymer ([0029], [0030], [0171], [0021], [0022]), comprising a base polysaccharide (e.g., [0031], [0030], [0042]), comprising a grafted side chain having at least one water soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer comprising a sodium carboxylate (see, e.g., including sodium (meth)acrylate [0047], [0048]) and an organic compound comprising a metal ion and containing a carboxyl group ([0024], sodium salt of citric acid). While Weber does not specifically teach that the acrylate component is grafted to the polysaccharide via radically initiated polymerization, because Weber teaches the inclusion of radical initiators (e.g., peroxide initiators, [0080], [0081]), such a reaction would be considered to have undergone radical polymerization and would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing as a suitable and commonplace manner of initiating polymerization.
Regarding claims 32-34, Weber additionally teaches that the saccharides may be oligosaccharides or polysaccharides having from three to ten monosaccharide units or more ([0040] – [0043]).
Regarding claim 35, Weber additionally teaches that the polysaccharides may be derived from, among others, maltodextrin ([0044]).
Regarding claim 36, Weber teaches that the sodium (meth)acrylate may compose the entirety of the ethylenically unsaturated monomer ([0047] – [0049]).
Regarding claim 37, Weber additionally teaches the inclusion of initiators that would polymerize the components via radical redox type polymerization (e.g., peroxides, [0080], [0081]).
Regarding claim 38, Weber additionally teaches the inclusion of bleaching agents that would reduce or prevent discoloration and are present after the reaction of products (e.g., chlorine bleach, [0088] – [0090]).
Regarding claim 39, Weber additionally teaches that a peroxide initiator may be used to initiate polymerization (e.g., [0080], and see Examples, [0200] – [0206], including reacting via peroxide radical initiation).
Regarding claims 40 and 41, Weber teaches the inclusion of organic compounds that may comprise a metal salt (e.g., [0024], chelating agents such as MGDA and GLDA, [0025] – [0028]).
Regarding claim 42, Weber additionally teaches the compound corresponding to the claimed organic compound ay contain at least one carboxylate group (e.g., [0024]).
Regarding claims 43 and 44, Weber additionally teaches the compound corresponding to the claimed organic compound ay contain at least three carboxylate groups (e.g., citric acid, having three carboxylate groups, [0024]).
Regarding claim 45, Weber additionally teaches generally that the amounts of a metal salt compound and organic compound may be included on the range of from 1:1 to 1:10,000 (see [0064] – [0068] and [0075], [0076]). The Examiner notes generally that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 46, Weber teaches the inclusion of chelating compounds such as GLDA which are descried in the present specification having the claimed biodegradability properties ([0012], [0027]; and see PG Pub. 2025/0059471 at [0145]) and thus is considered to teach organic compounds having the claimed biodegradability properties.
Regarding claims 47 and 48, Weber additionally teaches the polymer may be formed into a granule form or in solution form (e.g., [0021], [0179]).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claim 31, above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 2016/0312154, “Bauer”).
Regarding claim 49, Weber fails to specifically teach the claimed requirements a, b, c, or d. However, at least one of such properties are known and obvious in view of the prior art in the art of detergent components. For example, in the same field of endeavor of detergent compositions (e.g., detergents, [0094], including polysaccharides, [0028] – [0030]), Bauer teaches that a suitable Gardner color number is in the range of from 1.0 to 3.5 ([0042], [0043], [0135]) and thus the adjustment of the detergent of Weber to within this range would have been obvious as is conventional in the art and lower Gardner color numbers are preferred as an improvement in the art (e.g., [0135]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights