DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 6, 2026.
2 Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-15 stand rejected under 103 over Willey et al. (US 20150210964 A1) for the same reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on 4/06/2026.
3 Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 103 over Willey et al. (US 20150210964 A1) in view of Soldanski et al. (DE 102005042603 A1) for the same reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on 4/06/2026.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
4 Applicant's arguments filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 103 over Willey et al. (US’ 964 A1), applicants argued that Willey does not discuss the problems associated with traditional LABSA-free concentrated dish wash compositions, therefore it can not be considered to teach the solution to such problem.
The examiner respectfully, disagrees with the above argument because the applicant’s argument based on the limitation “composition free from petrochemical based surfactants like alkyl benzene sulphonate (LABSA)” that recited in the claimed specification, the examiner would like to point out that it is the claims that define the invention and, therefore, the absence in the prior art of subject matter not included in the claims cannot be a basis for patentability. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570-71 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Therefore, arguments cannot be based on the limitations not included in the claims.
The applicants also argued that “Willey teaches that the photocatalyzable consumer product composition is an essential component which nowhere motivates a person of skilled in the art to develop a composition without the photocatalyzable consumer product composition and containing only surfactants in the amounts as claimed in the present application and the photocartalyzable consumer product composition, which is not present in the present application.
The examiner respectfully, disagrees with the above argument because, 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)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Applicants also argued that Willey does not teach any ratio between anionic and amphoteric surfactants as 1:1 to 1.5:1 as required by claim 9. The amount of water is provided as a balance in Willey, which nowhere indicates formulation of a concentrated dishwashing composition and the applicants also argued that the ratio is a critical structural limitations not a result-effective variable and cannot be considered as routine optimization.
The examiner respectfully, disagrees with the above argument because the examiner clearly addressed the limitations of claim 9 and mentioned that Willey et al. (US’ 964 A1) teaches a dishwashing composition comprising anionic surfactant and amphoteric surfactants in percentage amounts that overlapped with the claimed percentage amounts (see page 14, paragraph, 0153-0161) (see The Office action page 4, first and second paragraphs). Further, with respect to the applicant’s argument that the ratio is a critical structural limitations not a result-effective variable and cannot be considered as routine optimization, the examiner would like to point out that Table 1, recites the claimed ratio between specific anionic surfactant such as LES (sodium laureth sulphate) and specific amphoteric surfactant such as CAPB (cocamidopropyl betaine) and wherein the claims recite the ratio between unlimited anionic surfactants and unlimited amphoteric surfactants as claimed in claim 9. Therefore, the ratio between specific species of anionic surfactant (LES) and specific species of amphoteric surfactant (CAPB) could not be applied to different types of anionic surfactants and amphoteric surfactants to show the criticality of the claimed ratio in the claimed composition.
In this case the Comparative data in the claimed specification (Table 1) recites LES surfactant and CAPB surfactant, while the claims not teach or disclose specific species of anionic surfactants and amphoteric surfactants and thus, the experiments limited to LES and CAPB surfactants were not commensurate in the scope with the claims.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that the examiner’s reasoning relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, the examiner would like to point out that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F .2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Soldanski teaches linear alkylbenzenesulphonate (LAS) as the preferred anionic surfactants and while the present invention eliminates both LABSA and external viscosity modifiers and Soldanski does not discuss the problems associated with the LABSA-free concentrated dish wash composition.
The examiner respectfully, disagrees with the above argument because the applicant’s argument based on the limitation “composition free from petrochemical based surfactants like alkyl benzene sulphonate (LABSA)” that recited in the claimed specification, the examiner would like to point out that it is the claims that define the invention and, therefore, the absence in the prior art of subject matter not included in the claims cannot be a basis for patentability. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570-71 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Therefore, arguments cannot be based on the limitations not included in the claims.
The applicants also argued that Soldanski teaches away from the surfactant combination of the present invention and the change in viscosity on dilution is not disclosed or taught by Willey or Soldanski and the applicants also argued that the composition od Willey is structurally and functionally dependent on a photocatalytic system and the surfactant disclosures are made in the context of that system not as standalone formulation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Soldenski teaches a system wherein viscosity decrease with solvent addition, the examiner would like to point that Soldenski clearly teaches that viscosity increased by thickening agents and /or in particular at a high surfactant content of the agent and can be reduced by solvents as the water-soluble organic solvents (not water) (see page, 34, second paragraph, for the bottom, English translation). Therefore, Soldenski clearly teaches that organic solvents can cause excessive viscosity drop and not water as recited in the claims.
With respect to applicant’s argument based on the unexpected results of the claimed invention, the examiner would like to mention that the examples in the specification are of no probative value in determining patentability of the claims since they do not involve a comparison of applicant’s invention with the closest applied prior art. See In re De Blawe, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and In re Fern, 208 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1981). Even if, arguendo, the comparison was done between the applicant's invention and the closest prior art, the claims are not deemed patentable over the references of record since they are not commensurate in scope with the probative value of the data in the examples. See In re Clemens, 206 USPQ 289 (FCCPA 1980).
Further, applicants have not shown on record the criticality of the claimed invention because the claimed ingredients such as anionic surfactants and amphoteric surfactants that recited the comparative data in the claimed specification (Table 2 and 3) are more limited species than the whole genus of anionic surfactants and amphoteric surfactants that recited in the claims and thus, the claims are not deemed patentable over the references of record since they are not commensurate in scope with the probative value of the data in the examples.
5 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights