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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10, 16-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 2026/06/22 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amount of surfactants must be 90 wt.% of total composition which does not meet the unity of invention because of the lack of teaching by the prior art of Christensen. This is not found persuasive because applicanThe two claimed surfactants of A)- one biosurfactant, and B)- one fatty acid salt, as stated on the last two lines of claim 1, are indeed at least 90 wt.% of “all surfactants” in total composition. This means that the A+B are 90 wt.% of all surfactants contained in the total composition, which is different than 90 wt.% of total composition as asserted by applicant. Furthermore, applicant has added new claim 21 which is dependent on withdrawn claim 11 and thus is considered withdrawn as well. The elected claims 1-10, 16-18 and 20 are subject to examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christensen et al. (US 5,998,344).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 17, Christensen teaches a cleaning detergent composition (abstract, C.1: L40-55) comprising a glycolipid biosurfactant (A) such as decanoyl glycoside (instant claim 2) in amount of 25 wt.%, (B) oleic fatty acid (in presence of sodium hydroxide; instant claims 3, 4, 17) in amount of 2 wt.%, and a fatty
acid sodium sulfate salt (anionic surfactant) in amount of 3 wt.%; [abstract, C.5: L.53-67], wherein composition comprises builder (instant claim 5); [C.2: L. 21-22]. Therefore, from the above values the total amount of surfactant (30 wt.%) and A+B being 27 wt.% the claimed 90 wt.% of total surfactants is anticipated.
Regarding claims 6-8, 18 and 20, Christensen teaches enzymes (instant 6, 20) such as protease, cellulase and amylase; [C.2: L.22-23, claim 5]. For claim 7 and 18; Christensen teaches 25 wt.% biosurfactant, 2 wt.% fatty acid salt and a builder such as triethanolamine (as identically disclosed by instant Pg.Pub. US 2025/0171719 A1: 0111) in the amount of 10 wt.%; [C.5: L.3, L.33], and enzymes in amounts of 0.001-10 wt.% with sufficient specificity; [C.3: L.49-51], wherein (instant claim 8) composition comprises a non-biosurfactant such as fatty acid (dodecyl) sodium ether sulfate; [C.5: L.53-67].
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.
Claim 9-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (US 5,998,344) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Brandt et al. (US 2021/0371773 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 16, Christensen does not teach the soil release agents. However the analogous art of Brandt teaches a cleaning composition comprising biosurfactant and soil release polymers such as inulin, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and hydroxyethyl cellulose correspondingly; [145:Table, 134:Table, 143]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to I)- add the soil release agent of Brandt to Christensen’s composition with the motivation of further enhancing the soil removal performance of the composition. Brandt teaches the biosurfactant of rhamnolipid; [abstract, 6, 69, 90]. rhamnolipid is a glycolipid type biosurfactant thus same as Christensen’s biosurfactant. Thus, it is obvious to alternatively select the rhamnolipid for Christensen’s composition.
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
2026/08/09
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights