DETAILED ACTION
Applicants are cautioned about the correct representation of amendment(s) in claim(s). Part d) of claim 1 the term “less than 15” should be underlined.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naqvi et al. (US 2018/0312788 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11-12, Naqvi teaches a water-soluble unit dose article made from a water-soluble film of polyvinyl alcohol (instant claims 11-12) and polyvinyl alcohol copolymer(s); [17-18, 31,102], noting that the polyvinyl alcohol polymer is construed as polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer as well, which renders their blended form obvious. Naqvi’s article (i.e. system) comprises detergents of non-soap anionic surfactants such as alkylbenzene sulfonate in the amounts of 10-35 wt.%; [14, 43-44, 47, 66], non-soap nonionic surfactant (instant claim 2) such as alkoxylated fatty alcohol(s) in amounts of 15-30 wt.%; [17, 52, 66], fatty acids such as coconut oil in the amount of 5 wt.%; [examples 1, 3], organic solvent (instant 4) such as glycerol in the amount of 7.5 wt.% or 10-40 wt.%; [Example 1, 70], noting that glycerol is used and named under humectants which provides the same function as well. The amount of water taught by Naqvi is 15-35 wt.%; [abstract, claim 1]. The detergent article is usually utilized (instant 3) in the fields of cleaning substrate such as dishware and cloth washing (i.e. laundry) as indicated by Naqvi; [2]. It should be noted that all of the components of Naqvi are actually a common detersive detergent chemicals which are used in variety of laundry detergent compositions, which makes it obvious for the instantly claimed composition to be utilized in the laundry washing as well.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, and the amended amount of water to less than 15 wt.% (i.e. 14.99 wt.%), it should be noted that; I)- “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 [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2131.03, R6]. Alternatively, it is noted that prior art of Naqvi, on page 8 Examples 1-6 tables, shows two types of water. First DI water (deionized) on column “% W/W” (left column) and second the “% Water from Material” (right column). Note that the amount of DI on “% W/W” column (left column) is identically present on the “% Water from Material” column (right column), wherein the “% Water from Material” additionally shows the original DI water (left column) plus the amount of all water which have been added to the formulation through accompanying each ingredient or component of the composition. At the bottom of “% Water from Material” column it shows the final amount of water present in the composition which is, expectedly, higher than the amount of DI water (on left column) for each table on page 8. The prior art of Naqvi, on the other hand, does not show its own “% Water from Material” but rather states the total water amount. As is construed for Naqvi, a similar consideration and calculation (by subtracting the total amounts of “water from material” from total stated water amount) would result in an amount of less than 15 wt% water which would naturally and obviously render the instantly claimed amounts of “less than 15 wt.%” and “11.3 wt.%” obvious. According to page 8 tables, the “% Water from Material” is quite significant.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, according to Naqvi the total amounts of anionic and nonionic surfactants are (10-35 %) + (15-30 %) = 20-65 wt.%. Calculation of their ratios and its range results in 4 values (0.3, 0.7, 1.2, and 2.3) with considerable overlap with the instantly claimed values, thus rendering this limitations obvious. It is noted that; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (before the effective filing date) the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6-9, Naqvi teaches enzymes such as cellulase, amylase and lipase; [78-79], thickener such as glycerol; [70], soil release polymer of polyethylene imine ethoxylate; [12, 99], and chelating agent ethylenediaminetetraacetate; [99, 77].
Regarding claim 10, Naqvi teaches use of pH adjusting agents (buffers) for adjusting the solution pH; [99], without teaching its range. The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties, namely pH of 6-10 at 10 % by weight water solution at 25 deg C, are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. pH, would Expectedly, be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Naqvi teaches soil release polymer; [12, 99], and an aminocarboxylated chelant such as ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA); [77, 99].
Regarding claim 16, note that; all of instant claims limitations are the same as that of claim 1 (not addressed again) with the exception of amount of water which is 11.3 wt.%. I)- it should be noted that the prior art of Naqvi’s water amount is calculated based on the added water plus the minor amounts of water (percent water from material) which are associated with the other active components which in fact are added to the initial water amount required for the production of composition. This is shown in detail on tables for examples of 1-8. The instantly claimed composition does not disclose the percent water from its own chemical material. By a similar consideration and calculation, it is obvious that the instantly claimed amount of 11.3 wt.% would rise to higher amount(s) approximately near 15 wt.% thus rendering the water amounts obvious. Furthermore, as state above please note that’ II)- “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 [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2131.03, R6
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/07/08 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
Please note that most of applicant’s arguments and remarks are, indeed, responded to within the rejections of the claims above which does not appear to require further expounding the reason on obviousness of the claims. However, more relevant discussion(s) are again responded to below.
In response to applicant’s (page 6) that: “The proposed modification would also undermine Naqvi's stated purpose. Where a proposed modification would render the prior art composition unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the modification is not supported by a proper obviousness rationale. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see MPEP § 2143.0l(V). Likewise, a modifi-cation that changes the principle of operation of the reference does not support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959); see MPEP § 2143.0l(VI). Because Naqvi's inventive concept is premised on relatively high water content, reducing Naqvi' s water content to below 15 wt% would be contrary to Naqvi' s stated teaching and purpose.”, it should be noted that; I)- applicant’s interpretation of the preferred make up and application of Naqvi’s composition is carefully reviewed and considered, however, in the final analysis and in view of Naqvi’s total disclosure and teaching, it is not persuasive. This is simply because the range of water in Naqvi’s composition is not to a degree that could make it impossible to render the instantly claimed composition obvious, and in fact it is to the contrary. Please see the explanation (claims 1 and 15) within the rejection above.
II)- As construed, the there is no clear chemical reason to assume a presence of composition with materially different properties (unexpected results) at water levels of less than 15 wt.% (i.e. 11.3 wt.%) or more than 15 wt.%.
In short, I. PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). [MPEP 2123, R-5].
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
493 U.S. 975 (1989), [MPEP 2123, R-5].
C- In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 15 and 16, for the sake of brevity, please see the action above which includes the Office’s interpretation and explanation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/09/15
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights