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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1), in view of Steinberg (“Water Activity”), and Bettiol (US 20130029895 A1).
With regard to claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, and 13, Sun discloses a liquid detergent composition (see Abstract). Sun further discloses the composition as comprising less than 30wt% of water (see Abstract). Sun further discloses 15-30wt% of an alcohol ethoxylate (see [0005]) having the formula R2-(-O-C2H4-)m-OH, wherein R2 is a hydrocarbyl group having 8 to 16 carbon atoms and M is a number from 1 to 20 (see [0019]). Sun further discloses the composition having a pH of from about 6 to about 10.5 (see [0027]). Sun further teaches glycerol as a non-aqueous solvent (see [0031]) at 10-40wt% (see [0032]) and further teaches non-aqueous solvents as water-binding agents to reduce water activity of the composition (see [0030]).
While Sun fails to disclose a specific water activity, Sun further teaches glycerol as a non-aqueous solvent (see [0031]) at 10-40wt% (see [0032]) and further teaches non-aqueous solvents as water-binding agents to reduce water activity of the composition (see [0030]).
Steinberg discloses some molds may grow when water activity is as low as 0.7 (see paragraph 6). Steinberg further discloses it is, therefore, a good rule of thumb that water activity be kept below 0.7 (see paragraph 6). Steinburg further teaches that glycerin lowers water activity (see paragraph 9). Steinburg further discloses the typical water activities of various personal care products (see Table 3) and further discloses high levels of glycols can be used to lower the water activity below 0.7 to avoid the need for additional preservatives (see Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to maintain the water activity below 0.7, as disclosed by Steinberg, in the composition of Sun, for the purpose of reducing mold growth, as disclosed by Steinberg Therefore, it stands to reason that the glycerin of Sun would result in lower water activity, as disclosed by Steinburg.
Sun further fails to disclose a non-reducing sugar.
Bettiol discloses a multiphase liquid detergent composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Bettiol further discloses the multiphase liquid detergent composition is suitable for application to dishware, skin, or fabric (see [0071]). Bettiol further discloses the composition may comprise humectants that exhibit an affinity for water and help enhance the absorption of water onto a substrate (see [00115]). Bettiol further discloses suitable humectants as sorbitol and glycerol and humectants at a level of from 0.1wt% to 50wt% (see [0114]-[0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sorbitol and glycerol humectants at 0.1-50wt% of Bettiol in the composition of Sun for the purpose of enhancing the absorption of water onto a substrate, as disclosed by Bettiol.
With regard to claim 3, Sun discloses a preservative may be incorporated (see [0047]). The phrase “may” indicates that all solvents need not be used in the composition. Therefore, preservatives are not necessary components in the composition of Sun. Steinburg further discloses high levels of glycols, such as glycerin, can be used to lower the water activity below 0.7 to avoid the need for additional preservatives (see Table 3). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to remove preservatives as the composition may already comprise 10-40wt% of glycerol.
With regard to claim 7, Sun discloses the non-aqueous solvent may comprise glycol, butylene glycol, pentylene glycol, hexylene glycol, heptylene glycol, octylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, glycerol, 1,3-propanediol, triacetin, ethyl acetate, benzyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight of from 200 to 3000 g/mol, and combinations thereof (see [0031]).
With regard to claim 8 and claim 9, Sun discloses the non-aqueous solvent may comprise glycol, butylene glycol, pentylene glycol, hexylene glycol, heptylene glycol, octylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, glycerol, 1,3-propanediol, triacetin, ethyl acetate, benzyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight of from 200 to 3000 g/mol, and combinations thereof (see [0031]). The phrase “may” indicates that all solvents need not be used in the composition. Therefore, propylene glycol and polyethylene glycol are not necessary components in the composition of Sun.
With regard to claim 12, Sun discloses the liquid detergent composition is free from an alkylbenzene sulfonate, such as linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS), and an alkylbenzene sulfonic acid, such as linear alkylbenzene sulfonic acid (HLAS) (see [0022]).
With regard to claim 14, Sun discloses the composition may comprise an enzyme (see [0027]).
With regard to claims 17-19, Sun discloses amylase and protease as suitable enzymes (see [0039]).
However, Sun fails to disclose 0.1-5wt% enzyme.
Bettiol discloses a multiphase liquid detergent composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Bettiol further discloses the multiphase liquid detergent composition is suitable for application to dishware, skin, or fabric (see [0071]). Bettiol further discloses the composition may comprise an enzyme, preferably a protease (see [0127]). Bettiol further teaches a protease will provide additional hand mildness benefit (see [0127]). Bettiol further discloses mannanases and amylases as suitable enzymes and further discloses a preferred enzyme combination comprises a cocktail of conventional detersive enzynies like protease, lipase, cutinase and/or cellulase in conjunction with amylase (see [0127]). Bettiol further discloses enzymes at 0.00001-1wt% (see [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the protease, lipase, cutinase and/or cellulase in conjunction with amylase at 0.00001-1wt% of Bettiol in the composition of Sun, particularly protease, for the purpose of providing an additional hand mildness benefit, as disclosed by Bettiol.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1), in view of Steinberg (“Water Activity”), and Bettiol (US 20130029895 A1), as evidenced by Shell (“Neodol Alcohol Ethoxylate Product Stewardship Summary”) and Atrux-Tallau (“Effects of glycerol on human skin damaged by acute sodium lauryl sulphate treatment”).
With regard to claim 4, Sun, Steinberg, and Bettiol disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Sun further teaches glycerol as a non-aqueous solvent (see [0031]) at 10-40wt% (see [0032]). Sun further discloses 15-30wt% of an alcohol ethoxylate (see [0005]) having the formula R2-(-O-C2H4-)m-OH, wherein R2 is a hydrocarbyl group having 8 to 16 carbon atoms and M is a number from 1 to 20 (see [0019]).
However, Sun, Steinberg, and Bettiol fail to disclose a Zein score of not more than about 2% or not more than about 1% dissolved zein when tested on a 3% dilution.
Shell discloses alcohol ethoxylates as having low to moderate skin toxicity, no skin sensitizing properties, and further discloses skin contact is not expected to induce an allergic reaction (see paragraph 4). Atrux-Tallau discloses that glycerol widely used as humectant, is known to protect against irritants and to accelerate recovery of irritated skin (see Abstract). Both compounds are known to cause low skin irritation. Therefore, it would stand to reason that a composition comprising alcohol ethoxylates and glycerol would have a Zein score of not more than about 2% or not more than about 1% dissolved zein when tested on a 3% dilution. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 15-16 and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1), in view of Steinberg (“Water Activity”), and Bettiol (US 20130029895 A1), as applied to 14, and further in view of Shinoda (JP 2007209874 A).
With regard to claim 15 and claim 16, Sun, Steinberg, and Bettiol disclose all of the limitations of claim 14.
However, Sun, Steinberg, and Bettiol fail to disclose the chlorine scavenger as an amino acid.
Shinoda discloses a detergent composition, an analogous art, containing a dissolved chlorine capturing agent (see Abstract). Shinoda further discloses conventionally known dissolved chlorine scavenging agents include taurine, glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, and aspartic acid (see [0018]). Shinoda further discloses it has been conventional practice to modify fibers by cationizing them with a quaternary ammonium salt and then adsorbing adsorbent substances onto them. However, when such modified fibers are washed in water containing dissolved chlorine, the adsorbent substances may be oxidized and degraded by the oxidizing action of the dissolved chlorine (see [0003]). Shinoda further discloses the aforementioned modifying substances on fibers are generally weakly bound to the fibers, it is necessary to clean them to the extent that dirt is removed but the modifying substances are retained (see [0003]). Therefore, chlorine scavengers are employed to remove dissolved chlorine in water and prevent the oxidation of substances on modified fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the taurine, glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, and aspartic acid of Shinoda in the composition of Sun, Steinberg, and Bettiol as taurine, glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, and aspartic acid are known dissolved chlorine scavengers and chlorine scavengers may be employed to remove dissolved chlorine from water to prevent the removal of substances on modified fibers, as disclosed by Shinoda.
With regard to claim 20, Sun discloses a liquid detergent composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Sun further discloses the composition as comprising less than 30wt% of water (see Abstract). Sun further discloses 15-30wt% of an alcohol ethoxylate (see [0005]) having the formula R2-(-O-C2H4-)m-OH, wherein R2 is a hydrocarbyl group having 8 to 16 carbon atoms and M is a number from 1 to 20 (see [0019]). Sun further discloses the composition having a pH of from about 6 to about 10.5 (see [0027]). Sun further teaches glycerol as a non-aqueous solvent (see [0031]) at 10-40wt% (see [0032]) and further teaches non-aqueous solvents as water-binding agents to reduce water activity of the composition (see [0030]).Sun further discloses the composition may comprise an antifoam agent to reduce or hinder the formation of foam (see [0041]), a chelator as an additive(see [0047]), a fatty acid at 13-34wt% to maintain the desired controlled swelling and spring constant of the water-soluble film upon interaction between the liquid detergent and the unit dose pack (see [0024]), and sodium hydroxide as a neutralizing agent (see [0037]). Sun further discloses the composition may comprise an alkoxylated polyethyleneimine as a suspension polymer(see [0033]). Alkoxylated polyethyleneimines are disclosed in the instant specifications as suitable performance polymers. As Sun discloses liquid detergent compositions, it would stand to reason that combining these additives would result in a liquid detergent composition.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/955,408. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to detergent compositions comprising water, at least one surfactant, and glycerin.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14, and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/955,389 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to detergent compositions comprising water, at least one surfactant, and glycerin.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights