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
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/18/2024, 12/18/2024, 04/14/2025, 10/03/2025, and 06/03/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPO form.
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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably 8 to 20 and more preferably from 10 and 20 wt%" (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 6 will be interpreted as the surfactant system comprising 8 to 25 wt% of the cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably 8:1 to 11:1" (line 2) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 7 will be interpreted as the weight ratio of the primary to secondary surfactant is in the range of 6:1 to 12:1.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "measure on a Haake Viscometer (Models include VT181, VT501, VT550, or equivalent)" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the parenthesis are required for the claimed limitation. The phrase “or equivalents” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes as an equivalent to the viscometer models listed. The phrase "preferably 1500 to 2500 and more preferably 1700 to 2300" (lines 4-5) also renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 9 will be interpreted as the composition having a viscosity in the range of 1000-2700 cps at 21/sec at 25 C.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably at least 0.9 and more preferably at least 0.95" (line 2) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 11 will be interpreted as the composition having a Renewable Carbon Index (RCI).
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et. al (US6239093B1) hereinafter Foley, as evidenced by Polyox WSR ® N3000 CHEMPOINT and Polyox WSR ® N3000 SDS 2023.
Foley teaches a liquid cleaning composition comprising of a dianionic surfactant system (see Abstract). With regards to claim 1, 3, 5, and 7, Foley teaches the use of 0.1-50 wt% of alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactants of the formula RO(A)mSO3M (where R is preferably a C12-C15 alkyl, A is an ethoxy or propoxy unit, m is preferably between 0.5-3, and M is an metal cation such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc or ammonium) and alkyl sulfate surfactants of the formula ROSO3M (where R is preferably a C12-C15 alkyl and M is an metal cation such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc or ammonium) which overlap with formula I and II respectively (see Column 13, line 65; see also Column 14, lines 18-52). Foley also teaches the use of betaine amphoteric surfactants in the surfactant system (see Column 13, lines 47-48). The use of polyethylene glycol polymers (cleaning polymers) is taught in preferably 0.1-0.5 wt% and the use of sodium chloride at 1 wt% in the silicone premix and as needed to adjust viscosity (see Column 47, lines 55-57; see also Column 52, line 33-64). Foley additionally teaches the optional use of enzymes in the detergent composition (see column 22, line 67). Example 14 comprises of 8 wt% ammonium laureth 2 sulfate, 8 wt% ammonium lauryl sulfate, 1.5 wt% cocoamidopropylbetaine (CAPB), and water to balance among other (see column 53). Since the lower limit of silicone in the instant claim is 0, it need not be present in the final composition
Foley fails to explicitly disclose the weight ratio of surfactant A to surfactant B to be between 2:1 to 1:2.5 as recited in claim 1 and be in the range 1.5:1 to 1:2 as recited in claim 3. However, the weight ratio of the ammonium laureth 2 sulfate (functionally equivalent to surfactant A, formula I since the ammonium ion would dissociate in aqueous solution) to ammonium lauryl sulfate (functionally equivalent to surfactant B, formula II since the ammonium ion would dissociate in aqueous solution) is 1 which falls within the ranges recited in the instant claims (see Example 14, column 53).
Foley does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the primary to secondary surfactant to be in the range of 4:1 to 13:1 as recited in claim 1 and 6:1 to 12:1 as recited in 6. However, the ratio of the ammonium sulfate surfactants to CAPB is 8+8:1.5 (10.67:1) which falls within the ranges recited in the instant claims (see Example 14).
Although all the claim limitations are not presented in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date based on the general teachings of Foley. The combination of 0.1-50 wt% alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactants of formula I and alkyl sulfate surfactants of formula II, 1.5 wt% CAPB, 0.1 wt% polyethylene glycol cleaning polymers, 1 wt% sodium chloride into a single embodiment would have the added benefit of improved cleaning performance due to the combination surfactant system (see Column 1, line 63).
With regards to claim 2, Foley teaches the use of sodium laureth sulphate (SLES) as a preferred anionic surfactant (see Column 36, lines 45). Based on Foley’s general teaching of surfactants of the formula RO(A)mSO3M (where R is preferably a C12-C15 alkyl, A is an ethoxy or propoxy unit, m is preferably between 0.5-3, and M is a metal cation such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc or ammonium), it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the SLES to have 1-2 ethylene oxide units (R is C12-C15 alkyl, A is an ethoxy unit, m is 1-2, and M is sodium).
With regards to claim 4, Foley teaches the use of betaine surfactants such as alkylbetaines, sulfobetaines, amidobetaines, arnidosulfobetaines among others (see Column 39, lines 17-42). Examples 10-11 specify the use of CAPB as the secondary surfactant.
With regards to claim 6, Foley generally teaches the use of 0.1-50 wt% of alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactants of the formula RO(A)mSO3M (where R is preferably a C12-C15 alkyl, A is an ethoxy or propoxy unit, m is preferably between 0.5-3, and M is an metal cation such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc or ammonium) and alkyl sulfate surfactants of the formula ROSO3M (where R is preferably a C12-C15 alkyl and M is an metal cation such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc or ammonium) (see Column 13, line 65).
With regards to claim 8, Foley teaches preferred embodiments of the composition comprise of amylase enzymes at pH from about 8 to about 11 (see Column 23, lines 63-64). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect Foley’s composition to have a pH between 8-11. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claim 9, Foley does not explicitly disclose the viscosity of the composition in cps. However, Foley generally teaches the viscosity of the composition to range between 20-2,000,000 centistokes (see Column 42, lines 2-3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the viscosity of Foley’s composition to overlap with the viscosity of the range in the instant claim.
With regards to claim 10, Foley teaches the use of PEG 14-M (also known as Polyox WSR® N-3000) in Examples 10-13 (see Colum 48, lines 25-26). It is known in the art that Polyox WSR® N-3000 is a polyethylene oxide thickener with a molecular weight of 400,000 g/mol (see CHEMPOINT; see also SDS 2023).
With regards to claim 11, Foley does not explicitly disclose the RCI of the surfactant system. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the RCI to fall within the claimed range of at least 0.85 because the surfactant system taught in Example 14 is functionally equivalent to the instant claim. Therefore the RCI is inherent and necessarily at least 0.85 absent of evidence to the contrary.
With regards to claim 12, Foley teaches enzymes are normally incorporated in the detergent composition at levels from 0.0001% to 2% of active enzyme by weight of the detergent composition (see Column 25, lines 46-47).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley as applied to claims 1-12 above, in view of Antonelli et. al (EP3670639A1) hereinafter Antonelli.
The general teachings of Foley are recited above. Foley teaches a cleaning composition comprising of alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactants, alkyl sulfate surfactants, betaine amphoteric surfactants, and polyethylene glycol cleaning polymers, and sodium chloride (see Column 13, lines 47-48 and 65; Column 14, lines 18-52; Column 47, lines 55-57; Column 52, line 33-64). A hand dishwashing liquid composition is taught in Example 2. However, Foley fails to explicitly disclose a method of cleaning a hard surface using the composition.
Antonelli teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising of 8-30 wt% of primary sulfate surfactant of the formula R1(OR')nOSO3M+ (where R1 is saturated or unsaturated C8-C16 alkyl chain, R' is ethylene, n is from 1 to 18, and M+ is a suitable cation selected from sodium, calcium, potassium and magnesium), a secondary betaine surfactant, 0.001-0.2 wt% of polyethylene oxide, 0.1-5 wt% inorganic salt among others (see [0008]).
With regards to claim 13, Antonelli teaches a method of cleaning a hard surface comprising the steps of contacting the hard surface, optionally in diluted form, with the liquid detergent composition taught above, and removing the detergent composition from the hard surface, optionally by rinsing with water (see claim 12; see also [0050]). With regards to claim 14, Antonelli teaches the use of using the cleaning composition for handwashing hard surfaces, preferably dishware, typically meaning utensils or kitchenware (see claim 15; see also [0052]-[0053]). Although not explicitly stated, it is known in the art that kitchenware and utensils are made of stainless steel. Antonelli liquid composition is substantially similar to Foley’s. As such, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Foley’s composition in the method of handwashing taught by Antonelli. A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success in doing so along with the added benefit of improved flash foaming during the wash step by adopting Antonelli’s method (see [0007]).
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12, 497, 576B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 576’ is drawn to a similar liquid detergent comprising of a 8-30 wt% surfactant system, 0.1-5 wt% inorganic salt, 0.0001-0.2 wt% polyethylene cleaning polymer, 0.00001-4 wt% enzymes with a pH range of 4-8, a viscosity range of 1000-2700 cps, and a RCI of 0.85 at least along with a method of cleaning a hard surface that is preferably stainless dishware. The surfactant system further comprises of primary surfactant A of identical formula I and surfactant B of identical formula II in overlapping ratios with the instant claims, and a secondary betaine surfactant, specifically CAPB, in overlapping ratios with the instant claims. The liquid composition and method in the instant claims are functionally equivalent to the composition and method of US Patent No. 12, 497, 576B2.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,448,587B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 587’ is drawn to a similar liquid detergent comprising of a 8-30 wt% surfactant system, 0.1-5 wt% inorganic salt, 0.0001-0.2 wt% polyethylene cleaning polymer, 0.00001-4 wt% enzymes with a pH range of 4-8, a viscosity range of 1000-2700 cps, and a RCI of 0.85 at least along with a method of cleaning a hard surface that is preferably stainless dishware. The surfactant system further comprises of primary surfactant A of identical formula I and surfactant B of identical formula II in overlapping ratios with the instant claims, and a secondary betaine surfactant, specifically CAPB, in overlapping ratios with the instant claims. The liquid composition and method in the instant claims are functionally equivalent to the composition and method of US Patent No. 12,448,587B2.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of co-pending U.S. Application 18,866,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 578’ is drawn to a similar liquid detergent comprising of a 8-30 wt% surfactant system, 0.1-5 wt% inorganic salt, 0.0001-0.2 wt% polyethylene cleaning polymer, 0.00001-4 wt% enzymes with a pH range of 4-8 and a viscosity range of 1000-2700 cps, and a method of cleaning a hard surface. The surfactant system further comprises of primary surfactant A of identical formula I and surfactant B of identical formula II in overlapping ratios with the instant claims, and a secondary betaine surfactant, specifically CAPB, in overlapping ratios with the instant claims. The liquid composition and method in the instant claims are functionally equivalent to the composition and method of U.S. Application 18,866,578.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of co-pending U.S. Application 18,866,584. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 584’ is drawn to a similar liquid detergent comprising of a 8-30 wt% surfactant system, 0.1-5 wt% inorganic salt, 0.0001-0.2 wt% polyethylene cleaning polymer, 0.00001-4 wt% enzymes with a pH range of 4-8 and a viscosity range of 1000-2700 cps, and a method of cleaning a hard surface. The surfactant system further comprises of primary surfactant A of identical formula I and surfactant B of identical formula II in overlapping ratios with the instant claims, and a secondary betaine surfactant, specifically CAPB, in overlapping ratios with the instant claims. The liquid composition and method in the instant claims are functionally equivalent to the composition and method of U.S. Application 18,866,584.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights