DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: Clam 17 in the second line has stated the term “less than .1 wt.%” which appears to be a typographic error. In view of claim 6 the “.1 wt.%” is assumed to be ”less than 0.1 wt.%” for the purpose of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meine et al. (DE 102015215039 A1) in view of Schumann et al. (WO 2017/174358 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 11 and 14, Meine teaches a liquid (instant claim 11) detergent composition (e.g. detergent preparation) for treating textiles; [abstract, 1, 9-10) comprising a polyalkoxylated amine with molecular weight of 550-5000 D in amounts instant (claim 2, 14) of 0.25-7.5 %; [82-85, 91], builder(s) such as aminocarboxylic acid; [100-101], anionic surfactants in amounts of 20-45 %; [49-50], nonionic surfactants in amount of 3-50 %; [57-59, 66], and water (instant claim 8) in amount of 0-30 %; [7].
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 15-16, Meine does not teach the amount of builder(s). However the analogous art of Schumann teaches a liquid detergent composition as a universal laundry detergent with the same types of Meine’s builders in total amounts of 3-15 %; [page 12: Parag. 1-3]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose the amounts of builder, for Meine’s composition, with the motivation of using a proper quantity of this agent for optimal textile washing results as taught by Schumann above. Furthermore, Schumann teaches the instantly claimed builders of (instant claims 4, 13) EDDS, IDS, MGDA and GLDA; [page 12: Parag. 1], which are in the same category of amino- carboxylic acids (or salts) and are used in combination.
Schumann teaches the total amounts (3-15 %) of the above builder compounds, but does not teach their individual amounts. However, with respect to the ratios of EDDS/IDS (instant claims 5, 15-16), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was made to optimize the instantly claimed ratios to achieve the desired washing performance through routine experimentation for best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir), [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claims 6 and 17-18, Meine’s composition does not contain any phosphonate(s).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Meine’s teaching of nonionic surfactant (3-50 %) and anionic surfactant (20-45 %) would render their ratios (nonionic/anionic) obvious with a wide overlapping range.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 20, Meine’s an encapsulated (water soluble) unit dose detergent; [110-112], and a method of cleaning laundry substrates in a washing machine; [125, 128, 13].
Regarding claim 12, Present claim is drawn to a polyalkoxylated amine which is described in product-by-process format. It is well settled that where product by process claims are rejected over a prior art product that appears to be the same, the burden is shifted to the Applicant to establish an unobviousness difference, even if the production processes are different. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, the patentability of a product claim rests on the product formed, not on the method by which it was produced. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2112.02]. Furthermore, Meine teaches alkylene oxides used for preparation of polyalkoxylated amine with 2-12 carbon atoms which, approximately, would render the instantly claimed molecular weight of 200 gr/mole obvious; [83].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM- 6 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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/07/06
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights