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 12/23/2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tosaka et al (US 5,096,621).
Tosaka et al teaches the instantly claimed formula
PNG
media_image1.png
214
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see abstract).
Tosaka et al further teach specific compounds/species that fall within the formula.
PNG
media_image2.png
330
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Tosaka et al teach the in a detergent composition with water (Table 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Tosaka et al teach the composition also contains di-octyl-polyoxyethylene (Table 1). The structure is below.
PNG
media_image3.png
124
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Tosaka teaches the composition contains EDTA, which is a known detergent chelate (col 6, ln 55)
Regarding claim 12, Tosaka et al teach the composition contains a builder (col 2, ln 29).
Regarding claim 13, Tosaka et al teach the composition can be used to wash clothes (col 6, ln 36).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosaka et al (US 5,096,621).
The teachings of Tosaka et al are discussed above. Tosaka et al teaches the R groups are alkyl chains but does not explicitly teach an instantly claimed shorter chains.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” MPEP 2144.09. Alkyl chains are homologs with structural similarity and expected to have the same properties. Absent of evidence to the contrary, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect lower alkyl chains to have the same property as the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, the patentability of a product does not depend upon the method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process" (see, e.g. MPEP 2113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed. Tosaka et al teach the instantly claimed compounds. However, Tosaka et al does not teach how the compound is made. Therefore, the instantly claimed method of making the compounds is novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW whose telephone number is (571)272-2817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8-5.
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.
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
