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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure does not recite that the application claims the benefits of an international application, PCT/JP2023/016633 filed on 04/27/2023. The applicant is reminded to update the continuity data of their invention. Correction is required.
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 1-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2020152757 to Miyazaki (hereinafter “Miyazaki”, see English translation provided in IDS filed on 10/25/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches a method for cleaning a surface of an object (dishes) (English translation [0075]) comprising the step of bringing a cleaning liquid obtained by diluting a liquid detergent composition with water into contact with the object surface (English translation [0076 and 0077]), the liquid detergent composition comprising water (English translation [0074, and 0089]), an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (English translation [0006, and 0011]) (reads on “component (a)”), an amphoteric surfactant (English translation [0006, 0018 and 0022]) (reads on “component (b)”), a nonionic surfactant (English translation [0068]) (reads on “component (c)”), and an enzyme (English translation [0062]) (reads on “component (e)”).
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki further teaches that the sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) is an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester having an alkyl group having 5 to 18 carbons (English translation [0013]).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki further teaches that the sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) is a branched alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester having a branched alkyl group with 6 to 14 carbons (English translation [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki further teaches that the nonionic surfactant (reads on “component (c)”) is one or more selected from a polyoxyalkylene monoalkyl ether and an alkyl (poly)glycoside (English translation [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki further teaches that the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) is a betaine-type surfactant (English translation [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Miyazaki further teaches that the betaine-type surfactant includes lauryl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut alkyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut oil fatty acid amidopropyl betaine, lauric acid amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut alkyl amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, and coconut oil fatty acid amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine (cocamidopropyl betaine) (English translation [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki further teaches that the enzyme (reads on “component (e)”) is one or more selected from amylases and proteases (English translation [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki further teaches that the liquid detergent composition comprises ethanol (reads on “water-soluble organic” and “component (f)”) (English translation [0071, 0081 and 0099]).
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki further teaches that the liquid detergent composition can comprise alkali metal salts such as sodium and potassium (reads on “inorganic salt”, and “component (g)”) (English translation [0039]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Miyazaki further teaches that the object surface is a hard surface of a hard article, wherein the hard article is tableware and/or a hard article around the kitchen (dishes, pots, knives, chopsticks, spoons, and other tableware) (English translation [0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Miyazaki further teaches that the step of bringing the cleaning liquid into contact with the object surface comprises immersing the object into the cleaning liquid (English translation [0076-0077]).
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki teaches a liquid dishwasher detergent composition comprising an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (English translation [0006, and 0011]) (reads on “component (a)”), an amphoteric surfactant (English translation [0006, 0018 and 0022]) (reads on “component (b)”), a nonionic surfactant (English translation [0068]) (reads on “component (c)”), and an enzyme (English translation [0062]) (reads on “component (e)”).
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.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020152757 to Miyazaki (hereinafter “Miyazaki”, see English translation provided in IDS filed on 10/25/2024).
Regarding claim 15, Miyazaki does not teach that a mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition, (b)/(a), is 0.01 or more and 50 or less.
However, the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too low it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the surface of the objects, and/or wastes the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester, while if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too high, it wastes the amphoteric surfactant. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 16, Miyazaki does not teach that a mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition, (b)/(a), is 0.4 or more and 50 or less.
However, the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too low it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the surface of the objects, and/or wastes the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester, while if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too high, it wastes the amphoteric surfactant. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 17, Miyazaki does not teach that a mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition, (b)/(a), is 0.8 or more and 50 or less.
However, the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too low it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the surface of the objects, and/or wastes the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester, while if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too high, it wastes the amphoteric surfactant. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 18, Miyazaki does not teach that a mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition, (b)/(a), is 1.0 or more and 50 or less.
However, the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too low it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the surface of the objects, and/or wastes the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester, while if the mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too high, it wastes the amphoteric surfactant. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate mass ratio of a content of the amphoteric surfactant (reads on “component (b)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 19, Miyazaki does not teach that a mass ratio of a content of the nonionic surfactant (reads on “component (c)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition, (c)/(a), is 0.2 or more and 3 or less.
However, the mass ratio of a content of the the nonionic surfactant (reads on “component (c)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the mass ratio of a content of the nonionic surfactant (reads on “component (c)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too low it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the surface of the objects, and/or wastes the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester, while if the mass ratio of a content of the nonionic surfactant (reads on “component (c)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition is too high, it wastes the nonionic surfactant. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate mass ratio of a content of the nonionic surfactant (reads on “component (c)”) to a content of the alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester (reads on “component (a)”) in the liquid cleaning agent composition with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020152757 to Miyazaki (hereinafter “Miyazaki”, see English translation provided in IDS filed on 10/25/2024) in view of DE102014204352 to Buisker et al. (hereinafter “Buisker”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 12, Miyazaki does not teach that a hardness of the water used for diluting the liquid cleaning agent composition is 4°DH or more.
Buisker teaches a method for cleaning hard surfaces with a liquid cleaning agent (dishwashing liquid), wherein the cleaning agent can be first diluted with hard water or very hard water with a hardness of 16 to 32°DH (English translation [0001, 0008, and 0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Miyazaki wherein a hardness of the water used for diluting the liquid cleaning agent composition is from16 to 32°DH with a reasonable expectation of success, since Buisker teaches that it is effective to dilute a liquid cleaning agent (dishwashing liquid) with hard water or very hard water with a hardness from 16 to 32°DH (English translation [0001, 0008, and 0087] of Buisker). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8-16 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/860,090 (reference application, published as US 2025/0257289 to Miyazaki) (hereinafter “US’289”) in view of JP 2020152757 to Miyazaki (hereinafter “Miyazaki”, see English translation provided in IDS filed on 10/25/2024).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US’289 claims a similar liquid cleaning agent composition and method for cleaning an object surface comprising, bringing a cleaning liquid obtained by diluting the liquid cleaning agent composition with water into contact with the object surface, the liquid cleaning agent composition comprising water, an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester or a salt thereof, an amphoteric surfactant, an enzyme, and a surfactant other than an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester or a salt thereof, an amphoteric surfactant, an enzyme.
Claims 1, 6, 8-16 and 18 do not teach that the liquid cleaning agent composition comprises a nonionic surfactant, wherein the nonionic surfactant is one or more selected from a polyoxyalkylene monoalkyl ether and an alkyl (poly)glycoside, and that the amphoteric surfactant is a betaine-type surfactant, wherein the betaine-type surfactant is one or more selected from an alkylamidopropyl-N,N- dimethyl carboxybetaine and an alkyl-N,N-dimethyl acetic acid betaine.
However, Miyazaki teaches a liquid dishwashing detergent composition (English translation [0007-0008]) and a method of washing dishes with the liquid dishwashing detergent composition (English translation [0075]), the liquid dishwashing detergent composition comprising an alkyl sulfosuccinic acid ester or a salt thereof (English translation [0011]), an amphoteric surfactant (English translation [0018 and 0022]), a nonionic surfactant (English translation [0068]), an enzyme (English translation [0062]), and water (English translation [0074, and 0089]). In addition, Miyazaki teaches that the nonionic surfactant is one or more selected from a polyoxyalkylene monoalkyl ether and an alkyl (poly)glycoside (English translation [0068]). Furthermore, Miyazaki teaches that the amphoteric surfactant is a betaine-type surfactant, such as lauryl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut alkyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut oil fatty acid amidopropyl betaine, lauric acid amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut alkyl amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, and coconut oil fatty acid amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine (cocamidopropyl betaine) (English translation [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teaching of Miyazaki, to include a nonionic surfactant in the liquid cleaning agent composition, wherein the nonionic surfactant is one or more selected from a polyoxyalkylene monoalkyl ether and an alkyl (poly)glycoside, and wherein the amphoteric surfactant is a betaine-type surfactant, wherein the betaine-type surfactant is one or more selected from an alkylamidopropyl-N,N- dimethyl carboxybetaine and an alkyl-N,N-dimethyl acetic acid betaine, since Miyazaki teaches that it is effective to include a nonionic surfactant such as a polyoxyalkylene monoalkyl ether and an alkyl (poly)glycoside (English translation [0068] of Miyazaki), and an amphoteric surfactant is a betaine-type surfactant, such as lauryl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut alkyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut oil fatty acid amidopropyl betaine, lauric acid amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, coconut alkyl amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine, and coconut oil fatty acid amidopropyl dimethylaminoacetic acid betaine (cocamidopropyl betaine) in a liquid detergent composition (English translation [0022] of Miyazaki).
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 ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714