CTNF 18/757,876 CTNF 71646 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 , in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 5, 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 9 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. Claim 9 is indefinite in the recital of “other polyester polymers” In lines 3-4 because it is not clear what those other polyester polymers are. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 and 11-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Besirik et al. (US 2024/0182813), hereinafter “Besirik.” 07-15-02-aia The applied reference has two (2) common inventors (i.e., O. Besirik and H. Tantawy) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Regarding claims 1-9 and 11, Besirik teaches, in Example 3, Invention Paste D to produce dried LAS (linear alkylbenzene sulphonates, see [0002]) flakes, wherein Invention Paste D comprises 11.0 wt% NaLAS, 50.8 wt% Mg(LAS) 2 (a total of 61.8 LAS), 0.1 wt% trisodium sulphosuccinate, 0.9 wt% sulphosuccinic acid, 4.1 wt% sodium sulphate, 32.8 wt% moisture, and 0% polymers like polycarboxylate polymer, wherein the NaLAS is 18 wt% of total LAS and the Mg(LAS) 2 is 82 wt% of total LAS (see [0108]), hence, the weight ratio of the Mg(LAS) 2 to the NaLAS is 82:18 or 4.6:1. Besirik also teaches that the flake is anhydrous or has a moisture content of from above 0 wt% to 10 wt% water (see [0064]). When the above paste D is dried (see [0109]), say to 10 wt% moisture, the total LAS (NaLAS and Mg(LAS) 2 ) is (11.0 + 50.8)/(66.9 wt% total ingredients + 10 wt% moisture) x 100 = 80.4 wt% and the sodium sulphate is 4.1/76.9 x 100 = 5.3 wt%. Regarding claim 12, Besirik also teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising the flakes (see claim 17). Besirik teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Besirik anticipates the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besirik as applied to claim s 1-9 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Lazaridis et al. (US Patent No. 3,630,894), hereinafter “Lazaridis.” Regarding claim 10, Besirik teaches the features as discussed above. Besirik, however, fails to disclose the linear alkyl benzene sulphonic acid salt having a 2-phenyl isomer content of from about 15wt% to about 20wt%. It is known from Lazaridis, an analogous art in detergent composition (see col. 1, lines 12-16) which comprises salts of alkyl benzene sulfonates having mixtures of cations like sodium and magnesium (see col. 3, lines 50-60) to contain a low content of 2-phenyl isomers, preferably below about 35% of the 2-phenyl material (see col. 5, lines 12-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the LAS of Besirik, i.e., NaLAS and Mg(LAS) 2 , to contain a low content of 2-phenyl isomers, preferably below about 35% of the 2-phenyl material because this is the typical 2-phenyl isomer content of similar mixtures of alkyl benzene sulfonates as taught Lazaridis. With respect to the specific 2-phenyl isomer content, considering that Lazaridis teaches below about 35% of the 2-phenyl isomer, 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., 15wt%-20wt%) 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch et al. (US Patent No. 2,717,243; already cited in IDS dated 10/07/2024), hereinafter “Bloch.” Regarding claims 1, 8-9 and 11-12, Bloch teaches flaked, drum dried detergent composition which consists of sodium sulfate, 40 wt% SDBS (sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate) and 20 wt% Mg(DBS) 2 (magnesium dodecylbenzene sulfonate) (a total of 60 wt% dodecylbenzene sulfonates), wherein the weight ratio of the Mg(DBS) 2 to the SDBS is 20:40 or 0.5:1 (see col. 7, lines 1-59, in particular, Detergent Composition in line 5 of Table 1). It is noted that this example does not comprise polymers like polycarboxylate polymers. Bloch, however, fails to disclose a weight ratio of the Mg(DBS) 2 to the SDBS in the range from about 0.6:1 to about 9:1 as recited in claim 1. As the word “about” permits some tolerance (see In re Ayers, 69 USPQ 109, and In re Erickson, 145 USPQ 207), the 0.5:1 weight ratio of Mg(DBS) 2 to the SDBS in Bloch may be considered to read on the minimum limit of about 0.6:1 weight ratio of Mg(DBS) 2 to the SDBS as recited in instant claim 1. Regarding claims 2-4, Bloch further teaches a detergent composition comprising sodium alkyl benzene sulfonate (see claim 6) and magnesium alkyl benzene sulfonate (see claim 4), wherein the magnesium alkyl benzene sulfonate is present in the composition in an amount from about 5 to 50% by weight of the composition (see col. 2, lines 3-13). In the Example discussed above, the sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate is 40 wt% of the composition. Bloch, however, fails to specifically disclose the weight ratio of Mg(DBS) 2 to the SDBS in the range from about 0.9:1 to about 7:1 as recited in claim 2, or from about 1:1 to about 5:1 as recited in claim 3; and a total of alkyl benzene sulfonate from about 80 wt% to about 95 wt% of the composition as recited in claim 4. Considering the above teachings of Bloch, 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., 50 wt% Mg(DBS) 2 and 40 wt% SDBS (a total of 90 wt% alkyl benzene sulfonate, a weight ratio of Mg(DBS) 2 :SDBS of 50:40 or 1.25:1) 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). Regarding claims 5-7, Bloch further teaches that the sodium sulfate, which is a builder salt, is present in the final detergent composition in amounts ranging from about 10 to about 85% by weight (see col. 3, lines 53-75). Bloch, however, fails to disclose an inorganic salt like sodium sulfate in an amount above about 0 wt% to about 40 wt% as recited in claim 5. Considering that Block teaches from about 10 to about 85 wt% builder salt or inorganic salt like sodium sulfate, 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., 10-40wt%) 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) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch as applied to claim s 1-9 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Lazaridis . Regarding claim 10, Bloch teaches the features as discussed above. Bloch, however, fails to disclose the linear alkyl benzene sulphonic acid salt having a 2-phenyl isomer content of from about 15wt% to about 20wt%. It is known from Lazaridis, an analogous art in detergent composition (see col. 1, lines 12-16) which comprises salts of alkyl benzene sulfonates having mixtures of cations like sodium and magnesium (see col. 3, lines 50-60) to contain a low content of 2-phenyl isomers, preferably below about 35% of the 2-phenyl material (see col. 5, lines 12-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the Mg(DBS) 2 and SDBS of Bloch to contain a low content of 2-phenyl isomers, preferably below about 35% of the 2-phenyl material because this is the typical 2-phenyl isomer content of similar mixtures of alkyl benzene sulfonates as taught Lazaridis. With respect to the specific 2-phenyl isomer content, considering that Lazaridis teaches below about 35% of the 2-phenyl isomer, 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., 15wt%-20wt%) 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) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 8 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 9 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,876 Page 10 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights