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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on March 20, 2026.
Claims 1-7, 10, 15, 28-37, 39 are pending. Claims 31-37, 39 are withdrawn.
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) over claims 6 and 15 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 15, 28-30 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over US Patent No 11,591,546 in view of Man et al.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 15, 28-30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over US Patent 8,580,727 in view of Man et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 1-3, 5, 10, 15, 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Man et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al in view of Jordan IV et al is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on March 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 15, 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8, 14, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,591,546 in view of Man et al (US Patent Application 2014/0041131 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 15, 28-30, US Patent No. 11,591,546 claims a surfactant system comprising an extended chain anionic sulfate surfactant having C12-14 alkyl and 5 or more moles of propoxylation, an amine co-surfactant having a branched isodecyl or isotridecyl group and extended chain nonionic ethoxylated or ethoxylated and propoxylated C8-11 alcohol surfactant having 1-10 moles of ethoxylation, wherein the system forms an emulsion with an oily soil and wherein the anionic to co-surfactant to nonionic has a surfactant ratio of 1.6667:1:0.75 (Claim 1); a soybean oil (Claim 3); the emulsion is stable from 75-115F (Claim 8); wherein said anionic sulfate surfactant comprises a compound of formula R-[L]x-[O-CH2-CH2]y-M, wherein R is a linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted, aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon radical from about 8-20 carbons atoms, L is a linking group such as propylene oxide, x=2-16, y=1-5 and M is any ionic species such as carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfates and phosphates (Claim 14); C12-(PO)16-(EO)2-sulfate (Clam 16). However, US Patent No. 11,591,546 fails to specifically claim the formula of the nonionic extended chain surfactant with the amount of moles of propoxylation.
In the same field of endeavor, Man et al teaches a surfactant system that employs one or more extended chain surfactant (Paragraph 42). Man et al further teaches a preferred embodiment comprising a combination of nonionic and anionic extended chain surfactants (Paragraph 49). Man et al further teaches the nonionic extended surfactant is R-[L]x-[O-CH2-CH2]y, wherein R is a linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted, aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon radical from about 8-20 carbons atoms, L is a linking group such as propylene oxide, x=5-15, y=1-5 (Paragraph 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided x=5-8 in US Patent 11,591,546 in view of Man et al as Man et al teaches 5-15 moles of propoxylation, which satisfies the claimed range in order to provide a nonionic extended chain surfactant that attain low tension and high solubilization in a single phase emulsion with oils as taught in Man et al (Paragraph 46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 15, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al (US Patent Application 2014/0041131 (already of record)) in view of Crutcher et al (US Patent 6,191,099 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 10, 15, 28-30, Man et al teaches a surfactant system that employs one or more extended chain surfactant (Paragraph 42). Man et al further teaches a preferred embodiment comprising a combination of nonionic and anionic extended chain surfactants (Paragraph 49). Man et al further teaches a composition comprising anionic extended chain surfactant ALFOTERRA 123-4S or ALFOTERRA 123-8S and nonionic extended chain surfactant Ecosurf EH-6 (which satisfies 2-ethylhexanol (PO)m(EO)n) (Paragraph 128). Man et al teaches the surfactant system forms emulsions with and can remove greasy and oil stains (Abstract) such as soybean oil (Paragraphs 146-147). Man et al further teaches the nonionic extended surfactant is R-[L]x-[O-CH2-CH2]y, wherein R is a linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted, aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon radical from about 8-20 carbons atoms, L is a linking group such as propylene oxide, x=5-15, y=1-5 (which overlaps the instantly claimed range of x=5-8) (Paragraph 44). Man et al teaches Ecosurf EH-6 (which satisfies 2-ethylhexanol (PO)m(EO)n and wherein 2-ethylhexanol satisfies claimed Guerbet alcohol) (Table 1). Man et al further teaches the term “microemulsion” refers to a thermodynamically stable dispersion (Paragraph 35). Man et al further teaches the emulsions function over a wide temperature range from about 20-280°C (Paragraph 46). Man et al further teaches a composition comprising anionic extended chain surfactant X-AES having the formula: C12-14-(PO)16-(EO)2-sulfate and nonionic extended chain surfactant (Paragraph 128, Table 1). Man et al further teaches a surfactant system comprising 1-20wt% of extended chain anionic surfactant and a detergent composition with about 40-80wt% of the surfactant system and about 0-10wt% of a co-surfactant (which overlaps the claimed greater than 1:1 ratio of anionic surfactant to co-surfactant) (Paragraphs 53, 56). However, Man et al fails to specifically disclose a branched isodecyl amine surfactant.
In the same field of endeavor, Crutcher et al teaches a detergent composition comprising a polyalkoxylated amine surfactant for cleaning soil and oils comprising hydrocarbons (Abstract, Col. 1, Lines 13-15; Col. 2, Lines 25-50). Crutcher et al further teaches an exemplified surfactant is Tomah polyalkoxylated amine E-14-2 (which satisfies claimed branched isodecyl amine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the branched isodecyl amine surfactant in Man et al in view of Crutcher et al in order to provide a co-surfactant that is useful for removing soils and oil comprising hydrocarbons as taught in Crutcher et al. Moreover, Man et al encompass the incorporation of co-surfactants and additional surfactants (Paragraph 46, 54, 56) for cleaning grease and oils (Abstract) and it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 15, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al (US Patent Application 2014/0041131 (already of record)) in view of Haag et al (US Patent Application 2011/0073802 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 10, 15, 28-30, Man et al teaches a surfactant system that employs one or more extended chain surfactant (Paragraph 42). Man et al further teaches a preferred embodiment comprising a combination of nonionic and anionic extended chain surfactants (Paragraph 49). Man et al further teaches a composition comprising anionic extended chain surfactant ALFOTERRA 123-4S or ALFOTERRA 123-8S and nonionic extended chain surfactant Ecosurf EH-6 (which satisfies 2-ethylhexanol (PO)m(EO)n) (Paragraph 128). Man et al teaches the surfactant system forms emulsions with and can remove greasy and oil stains (Abstract) such as soybean oil (Paragraphs 146-147). Man et al further teaches the nonionic extended surfactant is R-[L]x-[O-CH2-CH2]y, wherein R is a linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted, aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon radical from about 8-20 carbons atoms, L is a linking group such as propylene oxide, x=5-15, y=1-5 (which overlaps the instantly claimed range of x=5-8) (Paragraph 44). Man et al teaches Ecosurf EH-6 (which satisfies 2-ethylhexanol (PO)m(EO)n and wherein 2-ethylhexanol satisfies claimed Guerbet alcohol) (Table 1). Man et al further teaches the term “microemulsion” refers to a thermodynamically stable dispersion (Paragraph 35). Man et al further teaches the emulsions function over a wide temperature range from about 20-280°C (Paragraph 46). Man et al further teaches a composition comprising anionic extended chain surfactant X-AES having the formula: C12-14-(PO)16-(EO)2-sulfate and nonionic extended chain surfactant (Paragraph 128, Table 1). However, Man et al fails to specifically disclose a branched isotridecyl amine surfactant.
In the same field of endeavor, Haag et al teaches a detergent composition comprising isotridecyloxypropyl-1,3-diaminopropane as an amine compound for removing film deposits, biocides and also to provide corrosion inhibiting effects (Paragraphs 15, 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the branched isotridecyl amine surfactant in Man et al in view of Haag et al in order to remove film deposits, biocides and provide corrosion inhibiting effects to the composition as taught in Haag et al.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al (US Patent Application 2014/0041131 (already of record)) in view of Crutcher et al (US Patent 6,191,099 (already of record)) or Man et al (US Patent Application 2014/0041131 (already of record)) in view of Haag et al (US Patent Application 2011/0073802 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 10, 15, 28-30 above, and in further view of Jordan IV et al (US Patent 6,593,287 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 6-7, Man et al and Crutcher et al or Man et al and Haag et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Man et al and Crutcher et al or Man et al and Haag et al teach the features above. However, Man et al and Crutcher et al or Man et al and Haag et al fail to specifically disclose an alkyl end capped nonionic surfactant.
In the same field of endeavor, Jordan IV et al teaches composition including ether capped poly(oxyalkylated) alcohols surfactants having superior grease cleaning abilities and improved spotting/filming benefits (Abstract). Jordan IV et al teaches ether capped poly(oxyalkylated) alcohol surfactants have the formula RO(R1O)xR2, wherein R is a linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted, aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon radical having 1-30 carbon atoms, x is about 1 to 30, R1 may be the same or different C2-C7alkylene and R2 can be –(CH2)y-X, wherein X can be phenyl (which satisfies alkyl is benzyl in the instant claims) or -C(CH3)2R3, wherein R3 can be methyl (which satisfies alkyl is butyl in the instant claims) (Col. 3, Lines 5-38, Col. 9). Jordan IV et al further teaches when x is greater than 2, R1 may be same or different and include both EO and PO units (Col 9, Line 63-Col. 10, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the butyl or benzyl end capped poly(oxyalkylated) alcohol surfactants in Man et al and Crutcher et al or Man et al and Haag et al in view of Jordan IV et al in order to provide nonionic surfactants having superior grease cleaning abilities and improved spotting/filming benefits as taught in Jordan IV et al and the broad teachings of Man et al already encompass the extended chain poly(oxyalkylated) alcohol surfactants. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10, 15, 28-30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues unexpected results. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the examples in the specification are of no probative value in determining patentability of 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 Fenn, 208 USPQ 470 )CCPA 1981). Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(b) III and 716.02(e).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights