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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 25, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0107] on page 17 of the specification states “. . . EO/PO-containing defoaming agents . . . according to the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
130
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and in paragraph [0109], the example recited is ethoxylated propoxylated 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, such as LFE-1410 and LFE-635. Examples S19-S31 in Table 5 also comprise the LFE-1410.
Hence, said compound is not consistent with the structural formula. It appears that the structural formula has an extra -CH2- group as shown by the arrow above.
Please also note that the same structural formula is shown in paragraphs [0018] and [0031] of the specification.
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.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 is indefinite because the structural formula shown in line 3 does not particularly point out the subject matter of the invention, i.e., ethoxylated propoxylated 2-ethyl-1-hexanol or LFE-1410 as the defoaming agent, as supported in the specification in paragraph [0109] and Examples S19-S31 in Table 5. It is suggested that the structural formula be corrected.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nielsen et al. (WO 2010/055052), hereinafter “Nielsen.”
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6, Nielsen teaches in Example 1, a liquid detergent composition A which comprises 3.0 wt% primary alcohol ethoxylate (C12-15, 7EO; which meets the first alcohol ethoxylate of claims 1-3); 2.5 wt% primary alcohol ethoxylate (C12-15, 3EO; which meets the second alcohol ethoxylate of claims 1-3); 0.5 wt% ethanol (which meets claim 6); and 2.0 wt% monopropylene glycol; which meets claim 5); among others (see page 7, line 20 to page 8, line 5); and wherein the liquid composition may be a fabric cleaning composition (see page 6, line 23).
Nielsen teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Nielsen anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sepulveda et al. (US Patent No. 4,954,286), hereinafter “Sepulveda.”
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-7, Sepulveda teaches, in Example 1, a mousse concentrate for the pretreatment of fabric in advance of laundering (see abstract), which comprises 6.0 wt% Neodol 25-3 (C12-15 + 3EO alcohol ethoxylate; which meets the second alcohol ethoxylate of claims 1-3); 6.0 wt% Neodol 25-9 (C12-15 + 9EO alcohol ethoxylate; which meets the first alcohol ethoxylate of claims 1-3); 13.0 wt% isopropyl alcohol and 10.0 wt% propylene glycol ; which meets claims 5-7); among others (see Table 1 under col. 4).
Sepulveda teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Sepulveda anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michel et al. (US 2003/0148908), hereinafter “Michel.”
Regarding claims 1-6, Michel teaches, in Example 1, a liquid detergent formulation for laundry wash use (see abstract) which comprises 12.600 wt% C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 7EO (which meets the first alcohol ethoxylate of claims 1-4); 9.000 wt% C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 3EO (which meets the second alcohol ethoxylate of claims 1-4); 4.260 wt% denatured ethyl alcohol (i.e., ethanol) and propylene glycol (which meets claims 5-6) (see [0058]).
Michel teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Michel anticipates the claims.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Nielsen.
Regarding claim 7, Michel, as discussed above, teaches a liquid detergent formulation for laundry wash use (see abstract) which comprises ethyl alcohol (see [0058]). Michel, however, fails to disclose isopropyl alcohol.
Nielsen, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. Nielsen also teaches the equivalency of ethanol (i.e., ethyl alcohol) with isopropanol (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) as alcohol solvents (see page 7, lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the ethyl alcohol or ethanol of Michel with isopropanol or isopropyl alcohol because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Nielsen on page 7, lines 2-4 is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one alcohol solvent for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Balliet et al. (US 2020/0140790), hereinafter “Balliet.”
Regarding claims 8-9, Michel teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Michel teaches that the liquid detergent formulation preferably contains an amount of 20 to 50% of a nonionic surfactant blend like alcohol ethoxylates (see [0026]). Michel, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of ethoxylated/propoxylated 2-ethyl hexanol in its recited amount.
Balliet, an analogous art in cleaning compositions (see abstract), teaches nonionic surfactants like alcohol ethoxylates which include ethoxylated/propoxylated 2-ethyl hexanol EO-PO (see [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated ethoxylated/propoxylated 2-ethyl hexanol EO-PO into the liquid detergent composition of Michel because Michel specifically desires a blend of alcohol ethoxylates, and the ethoxylated/propoxylated 2-ethyl hexanol EO-PO is another alcohol ethoxylate as taught by Balliet. With respect to the amount of the ethoxylated/propoxylated 2-ethyl hexanol, considering that Michel teaches a total amount of 20 to 50 wt% nonionic surfactant blend, and considering that Michel already teaches 21.6 wt% alcohol ethoxylate blend in Example 1, i.e., 12.6 wt% C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 7EO + 9 wt% C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 3EO, the ethoxylated/propoxylated 2-ethyl hexanol EO-PO may be incorporated in amounts, say 1-10 wt%, to provide a total amount of about 23 to 33 wt% nonionic surfactant blend.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel as applied to claims 1-6 above.
Regarding claim 10, Michel teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Michel teaches that the liquid detergent formulation preferably contains an amount of 20 to 50% of a nonionic surfactant blend, for example a blend of a condensed product of a C13/C15 synthetic alcohol with 3 moles of ethylene oxide and a condensed product of C13/C15 synthetic alcohol with 7 or 8 moles of ethylene oxide is preferred (see [0026]). In Example 3, Michel teaches a liquid detergent formulation which comprises 20.0 wt% C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 7 EO, 5.95 wt% denatured ethyl alcohol and 6.0 wt% propylene glycol, among others (see [0080]). Michel, however, fails to specifically disclose the incorporation of a C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 3 moles of ethylene oxide, say in Example 3, in an amount from about 10 wt% to about 30 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 3 moles of ethylene oxide in its optimum proportion, say in Example 3, because Michel teaches that it is preferred to use a blend of a C13/C15 synthetic alcohol with 3 moles of ethylene oxide and a C13/C15 synthetic alcohol with 7 or 8 moles of ethylene as disclosed in [0026]. With respect to the specific amount of the C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 3 moles of ethylene oxide, considering that Michel teaches from 20 to 50 wt% total amount of a nonionic surfactant blend, and Michel already teaches 20 wt% C13/C15 fatty alcohol with 7 EO in Example 3, the remainder, like for example, 10 to 30 wt% may be attributed to the C13/C15 synthetic alcohol with 3 moles of ethylene oxide to provide a total amount of 30 to 50 wt% nonionic surfactant blend.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights