DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-8, as originally filed on 06/28/2024, are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/07/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because no office actions have been mailed yet for co-pending App. 18/757,886 (as of 11/08/2025). The IDS has been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits (the struck-through NPL document). Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). The other documents were considered.
Initialed copies of the two IDS are attached to this office action.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it is suggested that the phrase “wherein the method comprises the steps” be amended to read “comprising” to remove an unnecessary wherein clause. See MPEP 2111.04. In claim 1, line 3, “1.01Lto” should be “1.0 L to” (add spaces).
In claim 3, line 1, the word “comprises” is missing after the term “detergent composition” and before the term “from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
5. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 2, the method is defined by a parameter, namely “total abrasive force”. The values of the parameter depend on the conditions under which they were measured and, without these conditions, the claims are unclear. The specification writes at pg. 12 that “abrasive force from hand scrubbing was determined using Swissatest Poka-Dot test fabric” in one example and describes “weight applied on top of a brush” to subject a stain to “either a 0.05 or 3.05 kg force” on pg. 16 in a second example. However, the test at 0.05 kg is outside of the claimed range and there’s insufficient detail provided as to how a force of “1.5kg to 10g” is applied to the stains or measured in the method. It is not even known if the claimed range is a low abrasive force or a heavy abrasive force applied to fabrics. Thus, claims 1-2 are indefinite.
The word “about” is used several times in claims 1-5 and the specification does not provide a clear explanation for what further values “about” includes for each recited range. “Functionally equivalent range surrounding the value” is vague (see filed specification, paragraph bridging pgs. 16-17); how does one determine what is “functionally equivalent”? Thus, the claims are indefinite for not clearly defining the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claims 2-8 are also rejected as indefinite for failing to overcome the deficiencies of rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
7. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchetti et al. (US 2007/0093407 A1).
As to independent claim 1, Bianchetti teaches a method of laundering fabric comprising: (a) contacting from about 10g to 100g of an acidic solid laundry detergent composition to from about 1.0L to 10.0L of water to form an acidic aqueous wash bath having a pH in a range from about 2.0 to 3.0 (see para. 0019: in process step (a), a laundry pretreater composition is applied onto stained parts of a fabric; para. 0022-0023: acidic liquid aqueous composition; para. 0038: the laundry pretreater composition may be in granular (reads on “solid”) or liquid form, where it is liquid, it contains water at a level of preferably 10 to 99% by weight of the bleaching composition; para. 0043: the laundry pretreater composition is preferably acidic with a pH of less than 7, most preferably has a pH of from 3 to 4), wherein the acidic solid laundry detergent comprises from about 10 to 70 wt% acidic component and from about 1.0 to 20 wt% detersive surfactant (see para. 0034-0037: laundry pretreater composition comprising a peroxy carboxylic acid, hereinafter referred to as a peracid, present at a level of from 10% to 40%; para. 0041: preferred optional components include surfactants, preferably at a level of less than 5%); (b) contacting soiled fabric to the acidic aqueous wash bath, and washing the soiled fabric in the acidic aqueous wash bath for from about 20 mins to 24 hours (see para. 0023: when used in diluted form, the acidic liquid aqueous composition remains in contact with the fabrics for up to 24 hours, preferably from 1 minute to 12 hours); (c) removing the washed fabric from the acidic aqueous wash bath (see para. 0019-0023: it is implicit that after the acidic composition remains in contact with the fabric for the desired time, the fabric would have to be removed from the wash bath so that the next step could be completed); (d) subjecting the soiled fabric from step (c) to an abrasive force (see para. 0019 & 0025: in step (b), the composition is mechanically agitated into stained parts of the fabric; para. 0025-0028: mechanical rubbing may be performed by brushes, wipes, sponges, fingers, etc. which correspond to an “abrasive force”) and (e) rinsing the washed fabric with water (see para. 0019, 0032: in step (c), the fabric is rinsed in an aqueous bath).
Bianchetti fails to explicitly disclose that a total abrasive force applied in method step (d) is from about 1.5 kg to 10 kg as recited in claim 1 or from about 2.0kg to 6.0kg as recited in claim 2.
However, as to claims 1-2, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would discover the optimum or workable ranges for the total abrasive force applied in step (d) of the method based on routine experimentation and the disclosure of Bianchetti (see para. 0025-0031: step of mechanically rubbing the acidic laundry pretreater composition into the stained parts of fabric). Burden is shifted to the Applicant to provide evidence that the claimed abrasive force range produces a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, it is considered to lie within the normal practice of the person skilled in the art of laundry to apply a force, e.g. by brushing, sufficient to remove a stain from a soiled fabric without adversely affecting said fabric.
As to claims 3-4, Bianchetti teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the acidic solid laundry detergent composition comprises from 30wt% to 70 wt% acidic component (see para. 0037: 10% to 40% peracid) and from 3.0wt% to 10 wt% detersive surfactant (see para. 0041: less than 5% surfactant); claim 1, wherein during step (b) the soiled fabric is washed in the acidic aqueous wash bath for from about 30 mins to 3 hours (see para. 0023: preferably contact the fabric for 20 minutes to 6 hours).
As to claim 5, Bianchetti teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein step (b) is carried out with an acidic aqueous wash bath temperature of about 5˚C to about 25˚C (see para. 0024: step (a) of the treating process is performed at a temperature of from 4˚C to 60˚C, preferably 20˚C to 40˚C).
Further as to claims 3-5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, the subject matter of claims 3-5 as a whole are obvious over the teachings of Bianchetti.
As to claims 6-8, Bianchetti teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the acidic component is a polycarboxylic acid (see para. 0033-0036: peroxy carboxylic acid); claim 1, wherein the acidic component is citric acid (see para. 0040: the bleaching composition my comprise other components; para. 0056: the pH of the bleaching compositions may be adjusted using any acidic agent, e.g. citric acid); claim 1, wherein the detersive surfactant is selected from: alkyl benzene sulphonate, alkyl sulphate, alkoxylated alkyl sulphate, alkoxylated alcohol and any combination thereof (see para. 0040-0041: the bleaching composition my comprise other components, preferably surfactants; see para. 0064-0069 for the claim 8 surfactants).
Examiner’s Note
8. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or figures in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katie L Hammer whose telephone number is (571)270-7342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9am-5pm EST.
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 on 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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.
KATIE L. HAMMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1761
/KATIE L. HAMMER/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1761 November 10, 2025