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 .
Specification
The use of the terms Baxxodur and Baxxodur ECX-210, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 11 recites the limitation "according to claim" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is interpreted as being dependent from claim 1.
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 1-8 and claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 20170355933 A1) in view of Siklosi (US 4769172 A).
With regard to claims 1-8, 10-11, and 18, Lant discloses a cleaning composition which may be a liquid (see [0025]). Lant further discloses that the composition may comprise a surfactant system (see [0063]) at 1-80wt% (see [0066]). Lant further teaches 1-40wt% of anionic surfactants (see [0071]). Lant further discloses 0.1-40wt% of nonionic surfactants (see [0087]) and alkylpolyglucosides as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0088]). Lant further discloses 0.5-15wt% of amphoteric surfactants (see [0071]).
While Lant does not specifically disclose at least about 40% by weight of the surfactant system of the anionic surfactant, Lant discloses 1-80wt% of a surfactant system and 1-40wt% of anionic surfactants. Through routine experimentation, one of ordinary skill in the art would select 60wt% of a surfactant system and the anionic surfactant at 65wt% of the surfactant system. This would result in the anionic surfactant at 39wt% of the overall composition.
However, Lant fails to disclose from about 0.1 to about 10wt% of a mid-chain 1,2-alkanediol, wherein the mid-chain alkyl chain of the 1,2-alkanediol comprises from 6 to 14 carbon atoms.
Siklosi discloses a dishwashing liquid, an analogous art (see Col 3 line 56-62). Siklosi further discloses 1-45wt% of surfactants (see Col 3 line 56-57), which may be anionic surfactants (see Col 3 line 16-18). Siklosi further discloses 1-50wt% of solvents (see Col 6 line 5-6), diols as preferred solvents due to their good grease cutting ability (see Col 5 line 64-65), and 1,2-octanediol as a suitable diol solvent (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the 1,2-octanediol of Siklosi in the cleaning composition of Lant for the purpose of improving the grease cutting ability of the composition, as disclosed by Siklosi.
With regard to claim 12, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further discloses the anionic surfactant comprises at least 70wt% of a sulfate surfactant (see [0083]).
With regard to claim 13, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further discloses C8-C18 primary, branched chain and random alkyl sulfates as suitable sulfate surfactants (see [0081]).
With regard to claim 14, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further discloses a preferred anionic surfactant has a level of branching from about 5% to about 40% (see [0083]).
With regard to claim 15, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further teaches 1-40wt% of anionic surfactants (see [0071]) and 0.5-15wt% of amphoteric surfactants (see [0071]).
With respect to the ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant of 1:1 to 8:1 considering that Lant teaches anionic surfactants in the range of 1-40wt% as disclosed in [0071] and amphoteric surfactants in the range of 0.5-15wt% as disclosed in [0071], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 39 wt% anionic surfactants: 5 wt% amphoteric surfactants or 7.8:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 16, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further discloses alkyl dimethyl amine oxides as suitable amphoteric surfactants (see [0900]).
With regard to claim 17, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further discloses C8-C18 alkyl moieties as typical for linear amine oxides (see [0090]).
With regard to claim 19, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further discloses that the composition may comprise a surfactant system (see [0063]) at 1-80wt% (see [0066]).
However, Lant fails to disclose from about 0.1 to about 10wt% of a mid-chain 1,2-alkanediol, wherein the mid-chain alkyl chain of the 1,2-alkanediol comprises from 6 to 14 carbon atoms.
Siklosi discloses a dishwashing liquid, an analogous art (see Col 3 line 56-62). Siklosi further discloses 1-45wt% of surfactants (see Col 3 line 56-57), which may be anionic surfactants (see Col 3 line 16-18). Siklosi further discloses 1-50wt% of solvents (see Col 6 line 5-6), diols as preferred solvents due to their good grease cutting ability (see Col 5 line 64-65), and 1,2-octanediol as a suitable diol solvent (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 1,2-octanediol of Siklosi in the cleaning composition of Lant for the purpose of improving the grease cutting ability of the composition, as disclosed by Siklosi.
With respect to the ratio 1,2-alkanediol to surfactant system of from about 1:60 to about 1:1 considering that Lant teaches a surfactant system in the range of 1-80wt% as disclosed in [0063] and [0066] and Siklosi discloses 1,2-alkanediol in the range of 1-50wt% as disclosed in (see Col 6 line 5-6) and Table 1, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 5 wt% 1,2-alkanediol: 60 wt% surfactant system or 1:12) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 20, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Lant further discloses a method including mixing the cleaning composition water to form an aqueous liquor and contacting a surface with the aqueous liquor in a laundering step (see [0110]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 20170355933 A1) in view of Siklosi (US 4769172 A), as applied to claims 1-8 and claims 10-20 above, and further in view of Zuniga (US 20200392427 A1).
With regard to claim 9, Lant and Siklosi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Lant and Siklosi fail to disclose divalent metal salts, selected from the group consisting of: magnesium and/or calcium salts of: chlorides, sulphates, carbonates, bicarbonates, linear alkyl benzene sulphonic acid, and mixtures thereof.
Zuniga discloses aqueous cleaning compositions, an analogous art (see Abstract). Zuniga further discloses the composition may be a dish soap (see [0055]). Zuniga further discloses sodium carbonate as a pH adjusting agent and pH adjusting agents present in a total amount effective to maintain the composition in an acceptable pH range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sodium carbonate of Zuniga in the composition of Lant in view of Siklosi for the purpose of maintaining the composition in an acceptable pH range, as disclosed by Zuniga.
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