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 Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) claim 8 recites “MEE” in line 3. It is suggested that “(MEE)” be added in claim 1 after “methyl ester ethoxylate” in lines 1-2 for proper antecedent basis.
b) in claim 9, it is suggested that “has” be added after “surfactant” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “pH of 5 to 10,” and the claim also recites “more preferably 6 to 8, most preferably 6.1 to 7.0” in line 2 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Batchelor et al. (WO 2022/228903), hereinafter “Batchelor.”
The applied reference has a common inventor (i.e., S. Batchelor) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1-4, 6 and 8-9, Batchelor teaches a liquid laundry detergent (see page 6, lines 22-25) which comprises 20.0 wt% C18 methyl ester ethoxylate with 10 mole average of ethoxylation (MEE 10EO), 12.5 LAS (linear alkylbenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant, see page 11, line 13), 5.2 wt% enzymes, optional alcohol ethoxylate, among others, and the remainder is water, wherein the C18 methyl ester has the following composition: [<C16 2.9wt%; C16 25.8wt%; C18:0 7.9wt%; C18:1 53.9wt%; C18:2 8.8wt%; >C18 0.6wt%] (see 1st composition in the Example on page 38, lines 5-18). Batchelor also teaches that one of the suitable enzyme includes a lipase (see page 24, line 1), like Lipex® (see page 25, lines 15-19), i.e., a bacterial lipase. Batchelor, however, fails to specifically disclose a lipase enzyme, say in the above example, as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a lipase as the specific enzyme in the above example because this is one of the suitable enzymes taught by Batchelor.
Regarding claim 5, Batchelor also teaches the equivalency of the LAS with alkyl ether sulphate as anionic surfactants (see page 11, lines 12-21 and 28-32). Batchelor, however, fails to specifically disclose an alkyl ether sulfate, say in the above example.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the LAS in the above example with alkyl ether sulfate because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Batchelor at page 11, lines 12-21 and 28-32 is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one anionic surfactant for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Batchelor further teaches that the composition has a pH of 5 to 10, more preferably 6 to 8, most preferably 6.1 to 7.0 (see page 5, lines 30-31).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 2019/0376005).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9, Piorkowski teaches in Inventive Example 1 a unit dose composition for fabric cleaning which comprises 23.074 wt% C12-C15 alcohol 7EO ethoxylate, 22.3 wt% sodium C12-C14 alcohol ethoxysulfate, 10 wt% C18 methyl ester ethoxylate 10EO, 9 wt% water, and enzymes (see Table 1 on page 8), wherein one of the suitable enzymes is a lipase (see [0046]). Piorkowski, however, fails to specifically disclose a lipase enzyme, say in Example 1, as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a lipase as the specific enzyme in Example 1 because this is one of the suitable enzymes taught by Piorkowski.
Regarding claim 7, even though Piorkowski does not explicitly disclose the pH of the above composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the above composition to exhibit a pH within those recited because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence would have similar properties.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 2007/0111914), hereinafter “Hsu.”
Regarding claim 3, Piorkowski teaches the features as discussed above. Piorkowski, however, fails to disclose a bacterial lipase.
Hsu, an analogous art in laundry detergent composition (see abstract), teaches that a lipase can be a bacterial lipase (see [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a bacterial enzyme as the specific enzyme in the composition of Piorkowski because this is a typical type of lipase in similar compositions as taught by Hsu.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9 above, and further in view of Batchelor.
Regarding claim 8, Piorkowski teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Piorkowski teaches 10 wt% C18 methyl ester ethoxylate 10EO (see Table 1 on page 8). Piorkowski, however, fails to disclose 5 to 50 wt% C16 MEE based on the total MEE component.
Batchelor, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Batchelor teaches that the C18 methyl ester ethoxylate with 10 mole average of ethoxylation (MEE 10EO) has the following composition: [<C16 2.9wt%; C16 25.8wt%; C18:0 7.9wt%; C18:1 53.9wt%; C18:2 8.8wt%; >C18 0.6wt%] (see 1st composition in the Example on page 38, lines 5-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the C18 methyl ester ethoxylate 10EO of Piorkowski to have a 25.8wt% C16 because this is a typical amount of C16 in a C18 MEE 10EO as taught by Batchelor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights