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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 and 10/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-19 are pending. Claims 5 and 7 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (JP2019182911A) cited in Applicants IDS and Espacenet pdf Translation attached.
Yokoyama et al. teach a liquid detergent composition for tableware and hard articles around the kitchen. See title.
With respect to claim 1, limitation to a method for cleaning an object surface, the method comprising bringing a cleaning liquid obtained by diluting a liquid cleaning agent composition with water into contact with the object surface, is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching the liquid detergent composition for hard articles around the tableware and / or kitchen contains water preferably contains 30% by mass or more, more preferably it contains 90 mass% or less. As the water, it is preferable to use ion exchange water, or sterilized ion exchange water. See page 11, 4th paragraph from the bottom. Also see page 2, paragraph 3 teaching each of the claimed components a, b and c with water. And the last sentence “The present invention relates to a liquid detergent composition for hard articles.”
With respect to claim 1 limitation to the liquid cleaning agent composition (see page 11, 4th paragraph from the bottom) and limitation to containing component (a): an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester having an alkyl group with 5 or more and 18 or less carbons or a salt thereof is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching a group selected from 2-propylheptyl group and the alkyl group is preferably an alkyl group having a branched structure. The alkyl group of the component (a) has good foaming property at the time of rinsing with 5 or more carbon atoms, and good foaming property at the time of washing with 18 or less carbon numbers. See page 3, paragraphs 3-4.
With respect to claim 1 component (b): a sulfobetaine is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching the component (b) includes one or more surfactants selected from amine oxide, sulfobetaine and carbobetaine. See page 4 paragraph 4.
With respect to claim 1 component (e): an enzyme is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching [Component (c)] is an enzyme chosen from lipase, amylase, and protease. See page 5, 2nd paragraph from the bottom.
Yokoyama et al. exemplify a method for cleaning tableware and/or hardware around the kitchen with a foamed liquid detergent without dilution, while the claim 1 requires a method of cleaning with a liquid obtained by diluting. See the exemplary method of cleaning in the paragraph linking pages 11-12.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Yokoyama et al. and arrive at the claimed method of bringing a cleaning liquid obtained by diluting a liquid cleaning agent composition with water into contact with the object surface as required by claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yokoyama et al. suggest a liquid detergent composition for hard articles around the tableware and / or kitchen containing the same 2-propylheptyl surfactants, sulfobetaine surfactants, enzymes and 30-90% water in general. See page 11, 4th paragraph from the bottom. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill understands the 30-90% water to encompass dilutions as that is commonly known in the art of detergents and cleaning with water.
Claim 2 limitation to wherein the component (a) is a branched alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester having a branched alkyl group with 9 or more and 12 or less carbons or a salt thereof is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching a group selected from 2-propylheptyl group and the alkyl group is preferably an alkyl group having a branched structure. The alkyl group of the component (a) has good foaming property at the time of rinsing with 5 or more carbon atoms, and good foaming property at the time of washing with 18 or less carbon numbers. See page 3, paragraphs 3-4.
Claim 3 is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching the mass ratio of component (a) / component (b) is 0.01 or more and 100 or less. See page 2, paragraph 3 and page 7, 2nd paragraph from the bottom.
Claim 4 limitation to further comprising an anionic surfactant (c) other than the component (a) in claim 1 is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching examples of the anionic surfactant other than the component (a) include alkylaryl sulfonic acid type surfactants, sulfate ester type surfactants, alkane sulfonic acid type surfactants, olefin sulfonic acid type surfactants, and sulfo fatty acid esters. See page 9, paragraph 5.
Claim 6 limitation to further comprising a surfactant other than the components anionic component (a), sulfobetaine component (b) and anionic component (c) above is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching nonionic and cationic surfactants in the last 2 paragraphs of page 10.
Claim 8 limitation to wherein the component (e) is one of lipases, amylases, and proteases is taught by Yokoyama et al. See last 2 paragraphs of page 5 and first 2 paragraphs of page 6.
Claim 9 limitation to wherein the liquid cleaning agent composition further comprises a water-soluble organic solvent is taught by Yokoyama et al. teaching a water-soluble organic solvent having 2-10 carbon atoms. See page 8, paragraph 4.
Claim 10 limitation to wherein the liquid cleaning agent composition further comprises an inorganic salt is taught by Yokoyama et al. on page 10, paragraph 5..
Claims 11-12 limitation to the object surface is taught by the title of Yokoyama.
Claim 14 limitation to wherein a method for bringing the cleaning liquid is
brought into contact with the object surface by applying, spraying, or immersing is taught by Yokoyama et al. teaching a liquid detergent composition is used in a detergent product formed by filling a container having a sprayer having a foam formation mechanism, and the liquid detergent composition is in a foam state. See page 14, middle of 3rd paragraph.
Independent claim 15 limitations to a liquid cleaning agent composition, comprising water is taught by Yokoyama et al. teaching a liquid detergent composition is used in a detergent product formed by filling a container having a sprayer having a foam formation mechanism, and the liquid detergent composition is in a foam state. See page 14, middle of 3rd paragraph. And Yokoyama et al. teach the liquid detergent composition for hard articles around the tableware and / or kitchen contains water preferably contains 30% by mass or more, more preferably it contains 90 mass% or less. As the water, it is preferable to use ion exchange water, or sterilized ion exchange water. See page 11, 4th paragraph from the bottom. Also see page 2, paragraph 3 teaching each of the claimed components a, b and c with water. And the last sentence “The present invention relates to a liquid detergent composition for hard articles.”
Claim 15 component (a): an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester having an alkyl group with 5 or more and 18 or less carbons or a salt thereof, is taught on page 3, paragraphs 3-4.
Claim 15 component (b): a sulfobetaine, is taught on page 4 paragraph 4.
Claim 15 component (e): an enzyme is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching one of lipases, amylases, and proteases. See last 2 paragraphs of pg. 5 & first 2 paragraphs on pg 6.
Claim 16 wherein the branched alkyl group of the component (a) is a branched alkyl group having a main chain with 6 or 7 carbons is taught on page 3 paragraph 4 limitation to the side chains having 3 carbons in total is taught in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.
Claim 17 limitation to wherein the branched alkyl group of the component (a) is a 2-propylheptyl group is taught in the last sentence of paragraph 3 on page 3.
Claim 18 limitation to wherein a mass ratio of a content
of the component (b) to a content of the component (a) in the liquid cleaning agent
composition, (b)/(a), is 1 or more and 50 or less is met by Yokoyama et al. teaching the mass ratio of component (a) / component (b) is preferably 0.2 and preferably 10 or less. See page 7, 2nd to last paragraph.
Claim 19 limitation to wherein a mass ratio of a content of the enzyme to a content of the component (a) in the liquid cleaning agent composition, (enzyme)/(a), is 0.001 or more and 0.2 or less is taught on page 8, paragraph 2.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (JP2019182911A) Espacenet Translation as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-19 above and further in view of Furuya (JP2013227257A) Google Patents Translation attached.
Yokoyama et al. is relied upon as set forth above. Specifically, Yokoyama et al. teach the liquid detergent composition for hard articles around the tableware and / or kitchen contains 30% - 90 mass% water and it is preferable to use ion exchange water, or sterilized ion exchange water. See page 11, 4th paragraph from the bottom.
Yokoyama et al. do not teach the claim 13 limitation wherein a hardness of the water used for diluting the liquid cleaning agent composition is 4oDH or more.
In the analogous art of cleaning, Furuya et al. teach it is commonly known to use the “sterilized ion exchange water” as the starting water; and adding calcium chloride and magnesium chloride to that sterilized ion-exchange water; to obtain water having a hardness of 4°DH or 10°DH. See the attached Google Patents translation page 4, last paragraph describing that for preparing the textile-product detergent composition, water having a hardness of 4°DH or 10°DH was prepared by adding calcium chloride and magnesium chloride to sterilized ion-exchange water. Furuya also used the resulting 4°DH water as a blank/control in the bactericidal evaluation. See the attached Google Patents translation page 4, last paragraph.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Yokoyama et al. with a hardness of the water used for diluting the liquid cleaning agent composition being 4oDH or more as required by claim 13 with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yokoyama et al. suggest a liquid detergent composition for hard articles around the tableware and / or kitchen containing the same 2-propylheptyl surfactants, sulfobetaine surfactants, enzymes and 30-90% sterilized ion exchange water in general and Furuya et al. teach it is commonly known to use the “sterilized ion exchange water” as taught by Yokoyama as the starting water; and adding calcium chloride and magnesium chloride to that sterilized ion-exchange water; to obtain water having a hardness of 4°DH or 10°DH useful in detergents for cleaning. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Yokoyama et al. with Furuya since both are in the analogous art of cleaning.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3-4,6,8-19 of copending Application No. US 20250257289A1 having serial no. US 18/860,090 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in a method for cleaning an object with the same liquid cleaning composition comprising an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester, sulfobetaine, enzymes and water, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1,3-4,6,8-19 of US 20250257289A1 encompass the material limitations of the instant claims. Optimization of the same components and ratios are within the level of ordinary skill and make obvious the copending applications. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of allowed/copending/patented Application No. US 20250296123A1 having serial no. US 18/860,212 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the instant application claim 1 are to be found in the allowed/copending/patented claim 1 (thus the application claim 1 fully encompasses allowed/copending/patented claims), The difference between the application claim 1 and the patented claim 1 lies in the fact that the patent claim includes a nonioic surfactant and a branched alkyl sulfocuccinc acid ester having a branched alkyl group with 8-12 carbons lies and includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a species of the generic invention of the application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the species. See in re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.Cir. 1993). Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights