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 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.
I)- Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1-14 include several parentheses including a number (such as (3), (16), (17) and (18)) which do not convey any meaning or significance, thus rendering the claims indefinite. It is not known whether the numbers inside these parenthesis are part of the claims or not, and if they are what is their significance. Appropriate correction is required.
II)- Claims 1-14 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 1 states, “A detergent preparation (3) which is water-soluble, the
detergent preparation (3) comprising: at least one first surfactant (16) and one second surfactant (17), wherein the second surfactant (17) has a lower melting temperature than the first surfactant (16) and a melting temperature of the detergent preparation (3) is at least 20° C. below the melting temperature of the first surfactant (16)”. This claim is in itself does not provide an obvious statement, because they include hundreds of thousands of surfactants (a plethora and abundance of chemicals) which would meet the instantly claimed melting points relationships which is beyond the available time for the examination.
Similarly, claim 2 states, “The detergent preparation (3) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the melting temperature of the first surfactant (16) is at least 120° C. and the melting temperature of the second surfactant (17) is at most 120° C. In this new “not further limited” claim the melting points of first surfactant and second surfactant meet, or overlap, at 120° C wherein the first one is higher than 120° C and the second one is lower than 120° C. The complexity of searching a set or individual pair of surfactants (with given melting point range) having 20° C melting point difference once placed in arrangements of their permutations is not reduced as long as the required “further limited” scope of the claims is concerned.
Again, claim 3 states; “The detergent preparation (3) as claimed in claim 1,
further comprising a third surfactant (18) having a melting temperature which is below the melting temperature of the second surfactant (17). According to claim 2, the melting point of second surfactant is 120° C or below that. Now, for the third surfactant having a melting point less than that of 2nd surfactant the requirement is, or will be, to find as many 3rd surfactants with a lower melting point for each and every existing 2nd surfactant. There are again a plethora and abundance of surfactants for any degree of centigrade belonging to any second surfactant as a melting point. In short, for any 2nd surfactant with a fixed melting point there are number of other surfactants with a lower melting point, so the type or nature of 3rd surfactant is a direct function of the type of 2nd surfactant and its variety. This mathematical relationship also exists between first and 2nd surfactants with 20° C melting point difference. Applicant’s disclosure does not abundantly provide a variety of each type of surfactant. The claims above are structured more toward solving a melting point puzzle rather than a clear chemical system to be analyzed and examined. The very same issues above are present in claims 4-8 at least.
Applicant is, respectfully, suggested to clarify the above indefiniteness issues by providing a specific list of surfactant compounds (Markush groups …etc.) which clearly constitutes the invention at hand.
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
2026/08/22
/MARK EASHOO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights