DETAILED ACTION
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The surfactants, on page 9, are identified as first, second and third. The third nonionic surfactant “cocamide monoethanolamine” (according to instant claim 2) is cited on page 5, paragraph 15, as the “fifth” surfactant. The specification contains no surfactant as fourth. Applicant is recommended to address the above discrepancies.
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 2 and 10 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.
Claim 2 states a first nonionic surfactant of “ethoxylated alcohol” and second nonionic surfactant of “fatty alcohol polyoxyehylene ether”. I)- Ethoxylated alcohols are generally used for alcohols with relatively high carbon numbers (i.e. 7 and above) which are known as fatty alcohol. II)- The second nonionic surfactant of “fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether” is actually another known name for “fatty acid ethoxylate” or “ethoxylated fatty acids” or “fatty alcohol polyglycol ether” which makes them all the same, or identical genus. In absence of any other differentiating limitation (i.e. species of nonionic surfactant..etc.) the first and second surfactants are examined as only one nonionic surfactant. Note that; according to claim 1, first and second nonionic are different and this is not the case by stated limitations of claim 2.
Claim 10 states two different oxidants of percarbonate sodium and sodium borate. Sodium borate (borax) is not an oxidizing agent and chemically it is a very mild compound as is used in skin cosmetics and washing eyes/flushing and similar applications. However, perborates are effective oxidizing agent and is/are used for bleaching and disinfecting. This claim is examined for sodium perborate instead of borate.
Applicant is required to correct the above indefinite matters in 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-6, 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski et al. (US 2021/0155883 A1) in view of Panandiker et al. (US 2014/0335167 A1) and Knapek et al. (US 2011/0305648 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 8-9 and 15, Piorkowski teaches a unit dose (instant claim 15. single dose water soluble pouch: title, 1-3, 6, 66-67) laundry detergent composition a first anionic surfactant such as alkylbenzene sulfonate (instant 2-3), a second anionic surfactant such as alcohol ethoxy sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate in total amounts of 31 wt.%; [27-28, 73], nonionic surfactants (first and second since they are identical) ethoxylated fatty alcohols in amounts of 23 wt.%; [44-46, 73], and additional nonionic surfactant (e.g. 3rd nonionic) such as alkyl glycosides; [45]. Piorkowski teaches chelating agents (instant 8) termed “chelators” which is construed as more than three; [57, claim 7].
Regarding claim 1, Transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a comprising’ format.” PPG Industries v.Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir.1998). See also Atlas Powder v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569,224 USPQ 409 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 137 USPQ893 (CCPA 1963); Water Technologies Corp. vs. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 7USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1988). [MPEP 2111.03 R3]. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.”
Regarding claims 1, 4-6 and 9, Piorkowski teaches enzymes; [57, claim 13], but does not teach their types and amounts. However, the analogous art of Panandiker teaches a consumer product, including laundry composition, comprising the instantly claimed enzymes of mannanase, amylase and protease in the amounts 1.7 wt.% within instantly claimed ranges; [273-275]. At the time, before the effective filing date, of invention it would have been obvious to select the enzymes (instant 4-6) of Panandiker with the motivation of having the claimed cleaning effects with more effective stain removing spectrum as taught by both prior arts above and more specifically by Panandiker. Piorkowski teaches only two of instantly claimed chelating agents namely sodium citrate (citric acid in presence of Na ions) in amount of 4 wt.%; [Table 5], and tetra sodium iminodisuccinate in amount of 1 about wt.%; [Table 5, 89]. However, Panandiker teaches (instant 9) Glutamic-N,N-diacetic acid (GLDA) wherein with presence of Na ions (i.e. sodium citrate or NaCl; see Table 5) that provides the instantly claimed tetrasodium glutamate diacetate in about 0.4 wt.%; [272: Tables]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention it would have been obvious to add the GLDA of Panandiker (a bio-based highly water-soluble material to bind metal ions and stabilize cleaning compositions ) to Piorkowski’s composition to enhance the chelating properties of laundry composition thus improved washing.
Regarding claims 11-14, Piorkowski teaches citric acid (a pH adjuster or a buffering agent) in the amounts of 4.5 wt.%; [table 5], which is slightly higher than instantly claimed amount. However, it is noted (instant 11) that, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2131.03, R6]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention to lower the amount of citric acid (as an obvious laboratory experimentation) to provide an intended pH condition for the composition’s cleaning efficacy. Piorkowsky teaches monoethanol amine (instant 12) in the amount of 3.15 wt.%; [56-57, Table 1]. Piorkowski teaches three different solvents (instant 13) of propylene glycol in amount of 8.2 wt.%; [Tables 1, 3], ethanol and glycerin in amount of 12.3 wt.%; [54, Table 3], a performance polymer (instant 14) such as polyethylene imine in amount of 6 wt.%; [81, Tables 1, 3].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski et al. (US 2021/0155883 A1) Panandiker et al. (US 2014/ 0335167 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Knapek et al. (US 2011/0305648 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Piorkowski does not specifically teach a third nonionic surfactant of cocamide monoethanolamine. However, the analogous prior art of Knapek teaches a laundry detergent composition (6, 8-9, 19) comprising cocamide monoethanolamine in the amounts of about 2 wt.%; [35]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the third nonionic surfactant of Knapek to Piorkowski’s composition with the motivation of stabilizing the ionic conductivity of the formulation for optimum performance as taught by Knapek above; [29-30, 33].
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski et al. (US 2021/0155883 A1) Panandiker et al. (US 2014/ 0335167 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gori (US 2019/0093055 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Piorkowski teaches optical brightener; [57], but does not teach its name or type(s). However, the analogous art of Gori et al. teaches a laundry composition comprising disodium distyrylbiphenyl disulfonate in the amounts of less than 5 wt.%; [239, 248, 252, 264]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the brightener of Piorkowski with that of Gori as a functional equivalent brightener.
With respect to claim 10, Piorkowski does not teach the instantly claimed two oxidants. However, the analogous art of Gori teaches sodium percarbonate and sodium perborate in the amounts of 1-20 wt.%; [96, 99]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add oxidants of Gori to Piorkowski’s composition with the motivation of improving the efficacy of soil cleaning composition for white fabrics.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM- 6 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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/08/15
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights