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, 5-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1) in view of Steinberg (“Water Activity”).
With regard to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11-13, and 17, 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]). Sun further discloses protease and amylase (see [0039]).
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.
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 6 and 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]). 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 10, 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 18, Sun discloses the liquid detergent composition may comprise a polyethyleneimine ethoxylate in an amount of from about 0.1 to about 6% by weight (see [0036]).
With regard to claim 20, Sun and Steinburg disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Sun discloses a liquid detergent composition (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 may comprise an antifoam agent to reduce or hinder the formation of foam (see [0041]) and a chelator as an additive (see [0047]). 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1), in view of Steinberg (“Water Activity”), 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 and Steinberg 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 and Steinberg 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 mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1) and Steinberg (“Water Activity”), in view of Bettiol (US 20130029895 A1).
With regard to claim 14, Sun and Steinberg disclose all of the limitations of claim 12.
However, Sun and Steinberg fail 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 15 and claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1) and Steinberg (“Water Activity”), and further in view of Frey (US 20210062110 A1).
With regard to claim 15 and claim 16, Sun and Steinberg disclose all of the limitations of claim 11.
However, Sun and Steinberg fail to disclose an acid and a base to form a buffer and wherein the acid is citric acid and the base is NaOH.
Frey discloses a green laundry detergent that is pH neutral, an analogous art (see Abstract). Frey further discloses the composition may be in liquid or solid form (see [0010]). Frey further discloses the composition may comprise a buffer used to achieve control over the pH of the formulation (see [0058]). Frey further discloses exemplary acids as acetic acid, adipic acid, carbonic acid, citric acid, fumaric acid, phosphoric acid, sorbic acid, succinic acid, and tartaric acid and exemplary bases as sodium hydroxide, magnesium oxide, and tribasic potassium phosphate, and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the pH buffer of Frey in the composition of Sun for the purpose of achieving desired pH control, as disclosed by Frey. Further, as the list of options disclosed by Frey is short, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to select citric acid as the acid and sodium hydroxide as the base to produce a buffer.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1) and Steinberg (“Water Activity”), and further in view of McGrath (“You're probably using too much laundry detergent — here's how much you need to clean your clothes”).
With regard to claim 19, Sun and Steinberg disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Sun and Steinberg fail to disclose the detergent composition is about 0.4 to about 0.8 fluid ounces per dose.
McGrath discloses the use of laundry detergent, an analogous art (see Title). McGrath further discloses a small load size as needing approximately 1 tablespoon (0.5 fl oz) of detergent (see paragraph 8). McGrath further discloses overuse of detergent may cause the washer drum to feel slimy and smell musty and may cause the clothing to have a white residue (see paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 0.5 fl oz of detergent of McGrath for the liquid detergent composition of Sun for the purpose of reducing the slimy feel and musty smell of the washer drum and avoiding a white residue on clothing from overuse of detergent in a washing machine, as disclosed by McGrath.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-14 and claim 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-13, and 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/955,378. 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 1-4, 6, 8-16, and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 8-19 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