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 Interpretation
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the phrase “wherein the composition is substantially free of alkyl ether sulfates” in Claim 12 is being interpreted as alkyl ether sulfates comprise less than 1.5 wt% of the composition as noted in the instant Specification (see page 14, lines 3-4).
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.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, and 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, and 13, the phrase "preferably" 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).
Claim 7 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The claim should state “wherein the anionically modified alkyl and/or alkenyl phenol polyoxyalkylene ether is selected from the group consisting of cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate, cardanol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate or mixtures thereof, preferably cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate.”
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claims will be interepreted as follows: claim 2 will be interpreted as R1 is a linear or branched alkyl or alkenyl group having C13-C17 atoms. Claim 3 will be interpreted as R1 is a linear C15 alkyl or alkenyl group. Claim 7 will be interpreted as the anionically modified alkyl and/or alkenyl phenol polyoxyalkylene ether is cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate, cardanol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate or mixtures thereof. Claim 9 will be interpreted the composition comprising the anionically modified alkyl and/or alkenyl phenol polyoxyalkylene ether in an amount from 0.1% to 30% by weight of the composition. Claim 10 will be interpreted as the composition comprising the enzyme in an amount of from 0.00001 to 1%. Claim 13 will be interpreted as the composition being a detergent.
With regards to claim 12, the phrase “wherein the composition is substantially free of alkyl ether sulfates” renders the claim indefinite because the structure of formula I of claim 1 significantly overlaps with the structure of an alkyl ether sulfate (R1 is a linear alkyl branch and there is an ether sulfonate branch off of the phenol). It is unclear whether strictly C10-C18 straight or branched chain alkyl ether sulfates (such as SLES) are being excluded from the composition or generally surfactants with linear alkyl groups and ether sulfonates groups are also excluded from the composition. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 12 will be interpreted as the composition is substantially free of C10-C18 straight or branched chain alkyl ether sulfates.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US20200392435A1) in view of Tyman (GB2466476A).
With regards to claim 1, Piorkowski teaches a unit dose composition comprising several anionic surfactants such as alcohol ethoxy sulfates, linear alkyl benzene sulfonate, C8-C20 alkoxylated alcohol, water, and a non-aqueous solvent (see [0024]). Piorkowski also teaches the use of protease enzymes (see [0092]). However, Piorkowski fails to explicitly disclose a cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate with the structure recited in the instant claim.
Tyman teaches the synthesis of different anionic sulfate group containing surfactants (see page 1, lines 8-10). In the reaction scheme, the synthesis of anionic surfactant cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate (R1 is a linear C15 alkyl, R2 is ethylene oxide, m is 1, E is an SO3) is shown below (see page 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
97
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tyman also teaches the use of sodium and potassium salts of phenolic lipids as reagents in the reaction medium to synthesize the cardanol phenolic ether sulfate (see Abstract), therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect sodium and potassium salts of the end product above to be present (such that M is Na+ or K+).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate taught by Tyman as the anionic surfactant ethoxy sulfate surfactant in the invention of Piorkowski. This combination would have the additional benefit of greater surfactant solubility because the synthesized surfactant of Tyman retains an unsaturated structure and a sulfonate group (see page 1, lines 18-20).
With regards to claims 2-7, the anionic surfactant cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate taught by Tyman has R1 is a linear C15 alkyl, R2 is ethylene oxide, m is 1, E is an SO3. The structure is shown above.
With regards to claims 8 and 10, Piorkowski teaches the use of a commercially available protease enzyme in 0.2 active wt% (8% active x 2.50 wt%) (see Table 1).
With regards to claim 9, Piorkowski teaches the use of 7-30 wt% of a C12-C15 alcohol ethoxylate surfactant (see [0083]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably include the anionic surfactant cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate taught by Tyman in the same weight range in the composition because of the similarity between the two anionic surfactants.
With regards to claim 11, Piorkowski teaches the use of a linear alkyl benzene sulfonate in the detergent composition (see [0003]).
With regards to claim 12, Piorkowski teaches the optional use of alkyl ether sulfonate surfactants (see [0045]). However, they are not required and the composition can be formulated free of them.
With regards to claim 13-14, Piorkowski teaches a unit dose pack to be used in washing machines for laundry (see [0019]).
With regards to claim 15, Piorkowski teaches the use of the unit dose in a washing machine and the dissolution of the exterior film upon exposure to water (see [0019]).
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