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 .
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.
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.
Claims 4-7, 15 and 19 are 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 4 has more anionic surfactant than claim 1 from which it depends. Claims 5-7 lack antecedent basis. Claims 15 and 19 contain a semi-polar surfactant, but claim 13 from which these claims depend, does not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kapsner et al, US 20130102803.
Kapsner et al teach a personal cleansing composition comprising 35% anionic surfactant, 0.35% lauryl alcohol, nonionic surfactant, 0.17% polyethylene glycol (humectant), cationic surfactant (coupling agent), and the balance water (¶124, example 10). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory. The examiner acknowledges the reference contains more than 15% anionic surfactant, but claim 4 raises doubt as to the actual amount of surfactant present.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bettiol, US 2015/0353868.
Bettiol et al teach mono alcohols for low temperature stability of detergent compositions (see title). These compositions contain a sulphonate anionic surfactant (e.g. aromatic sulphonate ¶28) and an amine oxide co-surfactant, wherein hexanol and heptanol are the preferred mono alcohols of the invention and may be present in amounts as low as 0.1% (claims 1 and 3). The anionic surfactants may be present in amounts as high as 40% (¶28), and preferred additives of the invention include from 0.5 to 10% hydrotropes, such as sodium xylene sulfonate (claim 6), nonionic surfactant (claim 7), 0.01 to 1.5% magnesium ion (claim 8), and from 0.01 to 20% glycol organic solvents (¶54).
First, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a composition containing well-known surfactants, solvents, and other common additives as all of these components are taught as preferred by the reference.
With respect to the ratio of alcohol to surfactant, the reference contemplates very low amounts of alcohol and high amounts of surfactant and so the ratio claimed is contemplated by the reference.
Though the reference contemplates branched alcohols, propylene glycol, and lower alcohols, such as ethanol, these are not required components of the reference.
With respect to the method claims, persons of skill in the art and consumers alike understand that any detergent is subject to dilution, contacting a surface, and rinsing.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bettiol, US 2015/0353868 in view of Connors et al, US 2010/0323946.
Bettiol et al are relied upon as set forth above. Note that these compositions are designed for hand dishwashing applications (¶59). Though glycols are suitable solvents of the invention, the reference does not specifically teach hexylene glycol.
Hexylene glycol is a well-known solvent for use in hand dishwashing applications as taught by Connors et al (¶58), and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a composition containing a well-known solvent with confidence of forming an effective dishwashing composition.
Claims 1-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al, US 2007/0232516.
Anthony et al teach a detergent composition comprising an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, and at least one aliphatic alcohol (see abstract). Preferred aliphatic alcohols are lauryl (claim 13), the anionic surfactant is present in an amount as high as 30% (claim 8), and the nonionic surfactant may be an amine oxide (¶34). These detergent compositions may also include typical detergent ingredients including solvents, hydrotropes and humectants (¶97-98).
Claims 1-10, and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al, US 2007/0232516 in view of Park, US 2018/0265825.
Anthony et al are relied upon as set forth above. These detergents are suitable as laundry detergents and hard surface cleaners (see title). Though the reference lists many possible detergent additives, it does not disclose divalent ions, sodium xylene sulfonate as a hydrotrope, or hexylene glycol as a humectant.
Park teaches a laundry detergent containing mixtures of anionic and nonionic surfactants, as well as sodium xylene sulfonate (¶264, example 7), and suitable additives include up to 15% hexylene glycol as a co-solvent (¶144), and magnesium and calcium salts as electrolytes (¶158). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add typical detergent additives as taught by Park to the laundry detergents of Anthony et al with confidence of making an effective laundry detergent as all of these ingredients are well known in the art for use in laundry detergents.
With respect to the method claims, persons of skill in the art and consumers alike understand that any detergent is subject to dilution, contacting a surface, and rinsing.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geary et al, US 2004/0157754.
Geary et al teach a shampoo comprising 14% anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, 0.2% lauryl alcohol, 1% sodium xylenesulfonate, and the balance water (¶195, example 1). Another example contains 20% anionic surfactant (example 8), and the anionic surfactants may be present in preferred amounts as high as 30% (¶35). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use greater amounts of anionic surfactant in example 1 as larger amounts of anionic surfactants are taught as preferred by the reference. Suitable additives of the invention include humectants which may be present in preferred amounts as high as 5%, but potentially as high as 20% (179), magnesium salts as antidandruff agents (¶167), and amine oxide surfactants (¶160). It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a shampoo containing well-known surfactants, and other common additives as all of these components are taught as preferred by the reference.
With respect to the method claims, persons of skill in the art and consumers alike understand that any shampoo is subject to dilution, contacting the hair, and rinsing.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viladot Petit et al, US 2008/0233057.
Viladot Petit et al teach a liquid soap comprising 20% of a surfactant system including anionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant, less than 0.2% lauryl alcohol, 1% glycerol (coupling agent), 1% hexylene glycol, and the balance water (¶153, example 2). Surfactants may be present in amounts as high as 50% (claim 6), and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use greater amounts of anionic surfactant in example 2 as larger amounts of surfactants are contemplated by the reference. Suitable additives of the invention include magnesium salts as antidandruff agents (¶133). It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a shampoo containing common additives taught by the reference.
With respect to the method claims, persons of skill in the art and consumers alike understand that any liquid soap is subject to dilution, contacting the skin, and rinsing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights