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 09/01/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/12/2026.
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 16-17 are new and claims 1 and 11 are amended.
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness is withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness is withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley (US6239093B1), as evidenced by WSR N3000 CHEMPOINT and Polyox WSR N3000 SDS 2023 are maintained for the reasons of record in the previous office action.
The rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Foley in view of Antonelli (EP3670639A1) are maintained for the reasons of record in the previous office action.
The newly added claim 16 details the method of calculating average EO in a surfactant which was previously recited in claim 1. The newly added claim 17 details viscometer model specifications which were previously recited in claim 11. Hence, the previous rejection of claims 1-12 under Foley also apply to new claims 16-17.
The previous office action is included below. New grounds of rejection for newly added claims 16-17 are included as well.
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 and 3-4, 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 10 comprises of 5 wt% ammonium laureth 2 sulfate, 5 wt% ammonium lauryl sulfate, 0.1 wt% PEG 14M, 2.5 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 1.5 or less as recited in claim 1 and be 1.45 or less 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 10, column 53).
Foley also fails to explicitly disclose the ratio of average EO of surfactant A and surfactant B combined to total surfactant B is 0.45 or less as recited in claim 1 and 0.43 or less than claim 4. Based on the chemical structure, the average degree of ethoxylation in ammonium laureth sulfate (functionally equivalent to surfactant A) is 1 and ammonium lauryl sulfate (functionally equivalent to surfactant B) is 0. Hence the ratio of average EO in surfactants A and B to total surfactant B is 1:5 (0.2) (see Example 10).
Foley does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the primary to secondary surfactant to be in the range of 4:1 to 8:1 as recited in claim 1 and 4:1 to 7:1 as recited in 7. However, the ratio of the ammonium sulfate surfactants to CAPB is 5+5:2.5 (4:1) which falls within the ranges recited in the instant claims (see Example 10).
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, 2.5 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 5, 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 8, 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 9, Foley teaches the use of PEG 14-M (also known as Polyox WSR® N-3000) in Example 10 (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 10, 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 11, 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 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 13-15 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 which provides charge neutrality 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 hard surface used in the method step above to be dishware (see claim 13; see also [0053]). With regards to claim 15, Antonelli teaches the use of using the cleaning composition for handwashing hard surfaces, preferably dishware (see claim 15; see also [0053]). 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]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley (US6239093B1).
The general teachings of Foley are recited above as applied to claims 1-12. With regards to claim 16, 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 fails to explicitly disclose how the average EO of surfactant A and surfactant B are defined. However, based on their chemical structures, the average degree of ethoxylation in ammonium laureth sulfate (functionally equivalent to surfactant A) is 1 and ammonium lauryl sulfate (functionally equivalent to surfactant B) is 0 because there is no ethoxy group.
With regards to claim 17, Foley does not explicitly state the use of the Haake Viscometer VT181, VT501, or VT550 to measure viscosity. 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. The use of a specific viscometer model to measure does not change the physical viscosity of the cleaning composition. Hence, the Haake Viscometer VT181, VT501, or VT550 are not given patentable weight because it does not impart any structural limitations on the cleaning composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pages 6-8) have fully been considered.
The Applicant argues the Foley does not teach or suggest the general inventive composition because the amount of silicone in Example 10 exceeds the limitations of newly amended claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Foley’s Example 10 specifically comprises 1.75 wt% dimethicone (silicone) which is above the 0.5 wt% silicone limit, silicone is not required in the inventive composition taught by Foley. Hence, the formulation could be formulated without silicone. Since the lower limit of silicone in the instant claim is 0, it need not be present in the final composition.
As stated in the previous office action, Foley also teaches the inventive composition to comprise 0.1-50 wt% alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactants which overlap with instant formula I and II (see Column 13, line 65; see also Column 14, lines 18-52), betaine amphoteric surfactants (see Column 13, lines 47-48), 0.1-0.5 wt% polyethylene glycol cleaning polymers (see Column 47, lines 55-57), sodium chloride salt (see Column 52, lines 33-64), the optional use of enzymes (see Column 22, line 67) in overlapping ranges with the instant claims. Foley also teaches the viscosity of the inventive composition to be in the range between 20-2,000,000 centistokes (see Column 42, lines 2-3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect overlap between the viscosity of Foley’s inventive composition with the viscosity ranges recited in claims 11, and 17. Hence, the general teachings of Foley suggest the inventive composition of the instant application and the previous rejections are maintained.
The Applicant also argues unexpected results with regards to the weight ratio of surfactant A to surfactant B and the ratio of average EO of total surfactants A and B to the average EO of surfactant B (see Remarks, page 7). Applicant argues their invention found Formulation 5 and 14 from Example 1 has added benefit of temperature stability that this is not found in the art.
The examiner asserts that applicant’s results of clear formulas from the weight ratio of 1.14 and EO ratio of 0.41in Formulation 5 and a weight ratio 1.17 and a EO ratio of 0.42 in Formulation 14 (see Table 2, Specification page 16) are not commensurate in scope with newly amended claim 1, as required in MPEP 716.02(d). Instant claim 1 requires a weight ratio of surfactant A to surfactant B of 1.5 or less and the ratio of average EO of surfactant A and B combined to surfactant B to be 0.45 or less. Therefore, the applicant has not shown that the unexpected results occur over the entire claim range.
The Applicant also argues Antonelli does not teach the use of enzymes in combination with the claimed surfactant system (see Remarks, page 8). The examiner asserts that Antonelli does not need to teach a hard surface cleaning composition comprising of enzymes because Foley’s inventive composition teaches all the limitations of the instant hard surface cleaning composition. Antonelli teaches the method of using a cleaning composition comprising of a similar surfactant system to Foley’s to clean a hard surface. Hence, the method of using the composition in claims 13-15 are suggested by the general teachings of Foley and Antonelli.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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