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 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 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10, and 12 are 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 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10, and 12, 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 1 will be interpreted as the phosphate sequestrant being selected from a group of HEDP, DTPMP, HDTMP, ATMP, EDTMP, TDTMP, PBTC, or mixtures thereof. 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 5 will be interpreted as m being an integer between 1 and 30. 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 sequestrant in an amount of from 0.01 to 10 wt%. Claim 12 will be interpreted as the composition being a detergent.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et. al (WO2022268657A1) hereinafter Chatterjee in view of Tyman (GB2466476A).
With regards to claim 1, Chatterjee teaches a unit dose composition comprising anionic detersive surfactants such as ammonium salts of organic sulfuric acids, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, C8-C18 alcohol ether sulfates (see page 19, lines 24-26; see also page 19, lines 23-25), and phosphonic acid sequestrant (see page 10, line 6). Suitable sequestrants include HEDP, HDTMP, ATMP, EDTMP, TDTMP, and PBTC (see page 10, line 6-12). However, Chatterjee 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 C8-C18 alcohol ether sulfate surfactant in the invention of Chatterjee. 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 claim 8, the phosphonic acid sequestrant is taught to be in either acid or salt form, preferably in acid form (see page 10, line 14).
With regards to claim 9, Chatterjee teaches the use of 1-40 wt% of a sulfuric anionic surfactant in a dishwashing unit dose composition (see [0179]). 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 the cardanol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate is a type of sulfate containing anionic surfactant.
With regards to claim 10, Chatterjee teaches the phosphonate sequestrant to be present in 0.1-10 wt% of the dishwashing composition (see page 34, lines 1-3). A prima facie case for obviousness exists for overlapping ranges.
With regards to claim 11, Chatterjee teaches the optional use of alkyl ether sulfates with the co-granulated sequestrant in the first compartment (see page 18, line 9). However, alkyl ether sulfate is not required to be the detersive surfactant of the cleaning composition of unit dose. Chatterjee teaches the detersive surfactants to be ammonium salts of organic sulfuric acids, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, C8-C18 alcohol ether sulfate surfactants, among others (see page 19, lines 24-26; see also page 19, lines 23-25). Hence the cleaning composition of Chatterjee can be formulated free of alkyl ether sulfate surfactants.
With regards to claim 12, Chatterjee teaches the use of the inventive unit dose composition for laundry (see page 27, line 15).
With regards to claim 13, Chatterjee’s inventive composition is a unit dose (see claim 1).
With regards to claim 14, Chatterjee teaches a method of laundering fabric by diluting the unit dose laundry detergent with water (see page 31, lines 29-33).
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