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 § 102
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.
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.
(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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO (2023/1172859).
WO ‘859 discloses an alkyl sulfated anionic surfactant containing concentrated surfactant blend which does not require a high pH in order to be hydrolytically stable, and as such, can be used to form detergent compositions which do not comprise high levels of salts or require the addition of high levels of organic solvents or structurants in order to be stable, and have the desired viscosity, dissolution and foaming profile, is met by a process whereby a buffering surfactant is added before or during the neutralization step of the alkyl sulfuric acid stream to form the alkyl sulfated anionic surfactant (abstract). The process incudes 30-70% of at least one C8-C8 alkyl sulfated anionic surfactants (including alkoxylated and non-alkoxylated alkyl sulfate surfactants) are made by processes involving a sulfation step, followed by a neutralization step. The processes described herein comprise a step whereby an alkyl alcohol stream is provided. The alkyl alcohol stream comprises at least one alkyl alcohol. The alkyl alcohol stream as such can comprise one alkyl alcohol or alternatively a blend of alkyl alcohols. Where it is desired that the resultant concentrated surfactant blend comprises alkyl alkoxylated sulfate, the at least one alkyl alcohol in the alkyl alcohol stream is preferably alkoxylated before the sulfation step. (page 8, lines 1-31). When alkoxylated, the alkyl alcohol can have an average degree of alkoxylation of less than 3.5, preferably from 0.3 to 2.0, more preferably from 0.5 to 0.9, in order for the resultant alkyl sulfated anionic surfactant to improve low temperature physical stability and improve suds mileage of the compositions of the present invention. However, the average degree of alkoxylation (especially ethoxylation) of the starting alkyl alcohol is preferably less than 0.5, preferably less than 0.1 (page 5, lines 1-35). If alkoxylation, such as ethoxylation, of the alkyl alcohol is desired, without wishing to be bound by theory, through tight control of processing conditions and feedstock material compositions, both during alkoxylation especially ethoxylation and sulfation steps, the amount of 1,4-di oxane by-product within alkoxylated especially ethoxylated alkyl sulfates can be reduced (page 3, lines 5-25). The alkyl alcohol has a weight average degree of branching of from 15% to 50%, preferably from 20% to 40%. The use of such branched alkyl alcohols can result in improved low temperature stability for compositions comprising the resultant alkyl sulfate surfactant, as well as providing the desired grease cleaning performance. As such, the branched alkyl alcohol used to make the alkyl sulfate surfactant can comprise C2-branched alkyl alcohol and non-C2-branched alkyl alcohol. The weight ratio of non-C2- branched alkyl alcohol to C2-branched alkyl alcohol can be greater than 0.5, preferably from 1.0:1 to 5: 1, more preferably from 2: 1 to 4: 1. Moreover, the non-C2 branched alkyl alcohol can comprise less than 30%, preferably less than 20%, more preferably less than 10% by weight of the non-C2 branched alkyl alcohol of Cl -branched alkyl alcohol, most preferably the non-C2 branched alkyl alcohol is free of Cl -branched alkyl alcohol. (page 11, lines 9-23). Air/SCE film sulfation processes are typically carried out using a film reactor, such as an annular falling film reactor, such as a “Chemithon” reactor, or a multi-tube film reactor, such as the “Ballestra” reactor. (page 13, lines 27-33). In addition, the neutralizing agent is an alkali. Further neutralizing agent can be added after the neutralization step in order to adjust the pH to the desired level. Suitable alkali can be selected from the group consisting of sodium hydroxide potassium hydroxide, ammonia, monoethanolamine, di-ethanolamine, tri-ethanolamine, and mixtures thereof, with sodium hydroxide being most preferred. (page 15, lines 25-35). Finally, buffering surfactant is added at a level to provide the resulting concentrated surfactant blend with a reserve alkalinity of greater than 0.02 when measured as a 10% by weight solution of the concentrated surfactant blend in demineralized water at 20°C; and the resultant concentrated surfactant blend has a pH of from 7.1 to 10 when measured as a 10% by weight solution of the concentrated surfactant blend in demineralized water at 20 °C (claim 1).
As this reference teach all of the instantly required it is considered anticipatory.
Alternatively, The average degree of ethoxylation having a difference of from 0.15-0.5 as suggested in claims 1, 5-6 can is silent but can be inferred from the teachings of WO ‘859 of the blends of alkoxylated alcohols having a average degree of less than 0.5 (see claims). The teachings further suggest a blend of alkoxylated alcohols sulfated in the process and further teach an average of said blend being alkoxylated on average with a degree of less than 0.5. Therefore the skilled artisan would include 0.15 and 0.25 as an average that is less than 0.5 per the suggestions of WO ‘859 and would have been obvious to the claims.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights