DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7-7-2026.
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 2 is 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.
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, claim 2 recites the broad recitation dioctyl sulfosuccinate preferably, and the claim also recites DOSS which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Braeckman et al (2023/034095).
Braeckman et al discloses in paragraphs [0106]-[0107] a process of cleaning dishes with a composition. The process comprises the step(s) of applying the composition onto the dish surface, typically in diluted or neat form, and rinsing the dish. The process may comprise the step of applying the composition in neat form onto a sponge and contacting the sponge containing the composition on the dish surface. In one embodiment, the composition can be applied in its diluted form. The soiled dishes are immersed in the sink containing the diluted compositions then obtained, where contacting the soiled surface of the dish with a cloth, sponge, or similar article cleans them. The cloth, sponge, or similar article may be immersed in the detergent composition and water mixture prior to being contacted with the dish surface. The contacting of cloth, sponge, or similar article to the dish surface is preferably accompanied by a concurrent scrubbing of the dish surface. Since the composition of Braeckman et al discloses the composition to be applied in a hand dish washing process, it is further considered that the performance is not adversely impacted by hard water.
Braeckman et al discloses further in paragraph [0103] that the liquid hand dishwashing cleaning composition can be packaged in a liquid dispenser for releasably affixing to an inverted container containing dispensable liquid such that the viscosity (at 20°C: 160 cps; 109 cps see items 1.1.1 and 1.1.2) of the liquid hand dishwashing cleaning composition, which contains a co-surfactant, is considered to be sufficient for dispensing the composition from an inline dispensing system.
Braeckman et al discloses further in Table 1, Example composition 1 comprising (amongst others, 100% active basis):
7.1 wt.% Alkyl polyglucoside (added as a premix including sodium cumene sulphonate)
7.1 wt.% Neodol 91/8 which is a C9-C11 EO8 alcohol ethoxylate
9.5 wt.% Alkyl ethoxy sulfate (regarding low 1,4 dioxane see paragraph [0060] )
4.7 wt.% linear C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide
The ratio of anionic surfactant to amine oxide is 2:1, the viscosity at 20°C is 160 cps. Since the composition comprises all components required by claim 1 of the present application, it is considered implicit that the composition is a high foaming and wetting detergent that is resistant to soil and mitigates 1,4 dioxane, therefore the claims are anticipatory.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braeckman et al (2023034095).
With respect to claim 3, Braeckman et al disclose dimethyl amine oxide (Example 1); and with further respect to claims 2 and 11, Braeckman et al teach anionic surfactants such as 15-40% of alkyl sulfosuccinate and dialkyl sulfosuccinate ester (0024-0025) along with 3-30% of amine oxide surfactants.
One skilled in the art would envision the optimization of surfactants to enable synergistic cleansing and performance by utilizing a varied assortment of surfactants and combinations of ration given the teachings of Braeckman et al and in the absence of criticality commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights