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.
Claim 4 and claim 5 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.
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 4 recites the broad recitation “propoxy and ethoxy”, and the claim also recites “most preferably ethoxy” 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.
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 5 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” 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
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 1-3 and claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andriessen (EP 4001391 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 2, and 5, Andriessen discloses a liquid laundry detergent (see [0005]). Andriessen further discloses 15-55wt% of non-soap anionic surfactant and 2.5-30wt% of non-ionic surfactant (see [0005]). Andriessen further discloses linear alkyl benzene sulphonate as a suitable non-soap anionic surfactant (see [0031]) and fatty methyl ester ethoxylate as a non-ionic surfactant (see [0046]). Andriessen further discloses 1.6wt% of a zwitterionic polyamine, 10.2wt% of AE3S ethoxylated alkyl sulphate, and 24.5wt% of linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (see Table 2). This corresponds to C as 10.2wt% and C/A as 0.42. Andriessen further discloses 4.8wt% of fatty methyl ester ethoxylate (see Table 2). Andriessen further discloses a pH of 7.4 (see Table 2). Andriessen further discloses alkoxylated polyamines (see [0039]).
While the disclosed weight percent of fatty methyl ester ethoxylate does not correspond to (B)/(A)+(B) of 0.2 to 9, routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight percentage of the non-soap anionic surfactant and the non-ionic surfactant. For example, at 10wt% of fatty methyl ester ethoxylate, (B)/(A)+(B) = 0.29. This further corresponds to a total of 44.7wt% of surfactants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the linear alkyl benzene sulphonate, fatty methyl ester ethoxylate, and zwitterionic polyamine of Andriessen to produce a liquid laundry detergent as Andriessen discloses liquid laundry detergents.
With regard to claim 3, Andriessen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Andriessen further discloses 15-55wt% of non-soap anionic surfactant and 2.5-30wt% of non-ionic surfactant (see [0005]). Andriessen further discloses linear alkyl benzene sulphonate as a suitable non-soap anionic surfactant (see [0031]) and fatty methyl ester ethoxylate as a non-ionic surfactant (see [0046]). Andriessen further discloses 1.6wt% of a zwitterionic polyamine, 10.2wt% of AE3S ethoxylated alkyl sulphate, and 24.5wt% of linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (see Table 2). Andriessen further discloses 4.8wt% of fatty methyl ester ethoxylate (see Table 2). Varying the weight percentage of each component constitutes routine experimentation. From this, the weight percentage of linear alkyl benzene sulfonate may be chosen as 15wt%, fatty methyl ester ethoxylate as 4.8wt%, and AE3S ethoxylated alkyl sulphate as 10.2wt%. This corresponds to C/A as 0.68 and (B)/(A)+(B) as 0.24. This further corresponds to a total of 30wt% of surfactants.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andriessen (EP 4001391 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Boeckh (EP 1198492 B1).
With regard to claim 4, Andriessen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Andriessen fails to disclose the alkoxylate as propoxy and ethoxy, most preferably ethoxy.
Boeckh discloses zwitterionic polyamines are used as additives in laundry detergent compositions to provide enhanced hydrophobic soil removal benefits (see [0032]). Boeckh further teaches the linear or branched polyamines are preferably ethoxylated (see [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ethoxylated zwitterionic polyamines of Boeckh in the composition of Andriessen for the purpose of providing enhanced hydrophobic soil removal benefits, as disclosed by Boeckh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights