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
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 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 1-3, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Zmiric discloses a home care composition comprising 0.1-2wt% of sugar amine (see [0079]). Zmiric further discloses the composition may comprise 0.01-30wt% of anionic surfactants (see [0104]). Zmiric further discloses the composition may comprise 1-20wt% of non-ionic surfactants (see [0111]) and further teaches ethoxylated fatty alcohols which comprise 2-30mol of ethylene oxide on C8-C22 fatty alcohols as suitable non-ionic surfactants (see [0107]). Zmiric further discloses water up to 100wt% (see Example 22).
However, Zmiric fails to disclose a single embodiment comprising all elements of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sugar amine, anionic surfactants, ethoxylated fatty alcohols, and water of Zmiric to produce a home care composition. Zmiric teaches the aforementioned components as comprising a home care composition having a sugar amine as a complexing agent. Zmiric further teaches such compositions are desirable to consumers as they comprise sustainable and environmentally friendly ingredients that are derived from natural and renewable sources (see [0006]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a home care composition desirable to consumers based on the teachings of Zmiric.
With regard to claim 2, Zmiric discloses N,N-dimethylglucamine preferably used in a cosmetic composition or a home care composition (see [0037]).
With regard to claim 3, Zmiric discloses sorbic acid salts of sugar amines as suitable (see [0037]).
With regard to claim 6, Zmiric discloses the composition may comprise 1-20wt% of non-ionic surfactants (see [0111]) and further teaches ethoxylated fatty alcohols which comprise 2-30mol of ethylene oxide on C8-C22 fatty alcohols as suitable non-ionic surfactants (see [0107]).
With regard to claim 7, Zmiric discloses the composition may comprise acetic acid (see [0097]).
With regard to claim 8 and claim 9, Zmiric discloses the composition may have a pH value of 2.0 to 12.0 (see [0095]).
With regard to claim 10, Zmiric discloses the anionic surfactant may be sodium lauryl sulfate (see [0101]).
With regard to claim 13, Zmiric discloses 0.1-2wt% of sugar amine (see [0079]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (WO 2016106167 A1).
With regard to claim 5, Zmiric discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Zmiric fails to disclose sodium tetraborate.
Park discloses a liquid laundry detergent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Park further discloses builders can provide beneficial properties such as generation of an alkaline pH and aiding in the suspension of soil removed from the fabric (see [0138]). Park further discloses sodium tetraborate as a suitable alkali metal borate (see [0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sodium tetraborate of Park in the composition of Zmiric. Zmiric teaches the composition may have a pH up to 12 and Park discloses sodium tetraborate raises the pH level. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect to create an alkaline laundry detergent with enhanced soil removal properties, as disclosed by Park.
Claim 11 and claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohba (US 20070213248 A1) and Piombino (US 20190153358 A1).
With regard to claim 11 and claim 12, Zmiric discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Zmiric further discloses 0.5-20wt% of amphoteric surfactants (see [0115]) and fatty acid amidoalkyldimethylamine oxide as a suitable amphoteric surfactant (see [0113]). Zmiric further discloses 0.01-5wt% of a preservative (see [0137]). Zmiric further discloses sodium benzoate as a suitable preservative (see [0137]). Sodium benzoate is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable preservative. Zmiric further discloses 2wt% of enzymes (see Example 22).
However, Zmiric fails to disclose a chelating agent.
Ohba discloses a surfactant-based composition (see [0001]) and further discloses the surfactant-based composition may be used for washing laundry, an analogous art (see [0063]). Ohba further discloses N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) as a chelating agent (see [0018]) at 1-50wt% (see [0018]). Ohba further discloses N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) as a preferred chelating component having better biodegradability than ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and being highly compatible with various washing agent components (see [0045]). Ohba further discloses the inclusion of a chelating agent for the purpose of inhibiting occurrence of soap residue (see [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the chelating agent of Ohba in the composition of Zmiric for the purpose of inhibiting occurrence of soap residue, as disclosed by Ohba, and to further select N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) as the chelating agent as N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) has better biodegradability than ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and is highly compatible with various washing agent components, as disclosed by Ohba.
Zmiric further fails to disclose an anti-redeposition polymer and an aqueous enzyme comprising a protease, an amylase, and a mannanase.
Piombino discloses washing or cleaning compositions (see Abstract) related to the field of household cleaning, an analogous art (see [0001]). Piombino further discloses enzymes at 0.05-4.5wt% (see [0058]) and further discloses protease as preferable as protease is able to handle tough dirty conditions and deliver consistent wash performance—even in water-rich concentrations—and reduces or eliminates the need for stabilizers, as well as increasing formulation flexibility for detergent manufacturers (see [0059]). Piombino further discloses soil release agents as enabling stains occurring subsequent to treatment with the soil release agent to be more easily cleaned in later washing procedures (see [0079]). Piombino further discloses acrylic/styrene copolymers as suitable anti-redeposition agents (see [0075]). Piombino further discloses 0.01-10wt% of anti-redeposition polymers (see [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the protease of Piombino in the composition of Zmiric as Zmiric discloses enzymes and Piombino discloses protease is able to handle tough dirty conditions and deliver consistent wash performance—even in water-rich concentrations—and reduces or eliminates the need for stabilizers, as well as increasing formulation flexibility for detergent manufacturers, as disclosed by Piombino.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the acrylic/styrene copolymers of Piombino in the composition of Zmiric as acrylic/styrene copolymers enable stains occurring subsequent to treatment with the soil release agent to be more easily cleaned in later washing procedures, as disclosed by Piombino.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dhawan (US 20230192929 A1).
With regard to claim 14, Zmiric discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Zmiric fails to disclose a method of cleaning laundry.
Dhawan discloses compositions to reduce the replacement rate of textiles caused by retained stains, an analogous art (see [0072]). Dhawan further discloses the compositions may comprise anionic surfactants (see [0250]) and nonionic surfactants (see [0212]). Dhawan further discloses the composition may comprise water (see [0317]) and a stabilizing agent which may be an amine (see [0351]). Dhawan further discloses a concentrated liquid cleaning composition may be diluted in water prior to use at dilutions ranging from about 1/16 oz./gal. to about 2 oz./gal. (0.47g/L to about 14.98g/L) or more (see [0443]). Dhawan further discloses a detergent concentrate that requires less volume to achieve the same or better cleaning efficacy and provides hardness scale control or other benefits at low use dilutions is desirable (see [0443]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the dilution method of Dhawan with the composition of Zmiric as the method of Dhawan is compatible with a similar composition. Further, the level of dilution disclosed by Dhawan is able to achieve the same or better cleaning efficacy and provide hardness scale control or other benefits at low use dilutions while requiring less volume than concentrated solutions.
Claim 15 and claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1), as evidenced by Shell (“Neodol Alcohol Ethoxylate Product Stewardship Summary”) and TER Chemicals (“Sugar-Based Surfactants”).
Zmiric discloses a home care composition comprising 0.1-2wt% of sugar amine (see [0079]). Zmiric further discloses the composition may comprise 0.01-30wt% of anionic surfactants (see [0104]). Zmiric further discloses the composition may comprise 1-20wt% of non-ionic surfactants (see [0111]) and further teaches ethoxylated fatty alcohols which comprise 2-30mol of ethylene oxide on C8-C22 fatty alcohols as suitable non-ionic surfactants (see [0107]). Zmiric further discloses water up to 100wt% (see Example 22). Zmiric further discloses the composition may have a pH value of 2.0 to 12.0 (see [0095]).
With respect to the ratio of a nonionic surfactant to anionic surfactant ratio ranging from about 5:1 to about 1:5 considering that Zmiric teaches of non-ionic surfactants in the range of 1-20wt% as disclosed in [0107] and anionic surfactants in the range of 0.01-30wt% as disclosed in [0104], 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. 12.0 wt% non-ionic surfactants: 3 wt% anionic surfactants or 4:1) 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).
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). TER Chemicals discloses sugar-based surfactants as gentle on skin lipids and proteins (see paragraph 2). Both compounds are known to cause low skin irritation. Therefore, it would stand to reason that a composition comprising alcohol ethoxylates and sugar-based surfactants would have a Zein score of less than about 2%. 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).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1), as evidenced by Shell (“Neodol Alcohol Ethoxylate Product Stewardship Summary”) and TER Chemicals (“Sugar-Based Surfactants”), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Piombino (US 20190153358 A1), Park (WO 2016106167 A1), and Brehm (US 20180193771 A1).
With regard to claim 16 and claim 17, Zmiric discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Zmiric further discloses sodium benzoate as a suitable preservative (see [0137]). Sodium benzoate is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable preservative.
However, Zmiric fails to disclose sodium tetraborate.
Park discloses a liquid laundry detergent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Park further discloses builders can provide beneficial properties such as generation of an alkaline pH and aiding in the suspension of soil removed from the fabric (see [0138]). Park further discloses sodium bicarbonate as a suitable builder (see [0142]). Park further discloses builders at 0-20wt% (see [0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sodium bicarbonate of Park in the composition of Zmiric for the purpose of generating of an alkaline pH and aiding in the suspension of soil removed from the fabric, as disclosed by Park.
Zmiric further fails to disclose an anti-redeposition polymer and an aqueous enzyme comprising a protease, an amylase, and a mannanase.
Piombino discloses washing or cleaning compositions (see Abstract) related to the field of household cleaning, an analogous art (see [0001]). Piombino further discloses enzymes at 0.05-4.5wt% (see [0058]) and further discloses protease as preferable as protease is able to handle tough dirty conditions and deliver consistent wash performance—even in water-rich concentrations—and reduces or eliminates the need for stabilizers, as well as increasing formulation flexibility for detergent manufacturers (see [0059]). Piombino further discloses soil release agents as enabling stains occurring subsequent to treatment with the soil release agent to be more easily cleaned in later washing procedures (see [0079]). Piombino further discloses acrylic/styrene copolymers as suitable anti-redeposition agents (see [0075]). Piombino further discloses 0.01-10wt% of anti-redeposition polymers (see [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the protease of Piombino in the composition of Zmiric as Zmiric discloses enzymes and Piombino discloses protease is able to handle tough dirty conditions and deliver consistent wash performance—even in water-rich concentrations—and reduces or eliminates the need for stabilizers, as well as increasing formulation flexibility for detergent manufacturers, as disclosed by Piombino.
Zmiric further fails to disclose a defoamer.
Brehm discloses liquid laundry detergents, an analogous art (see [0171]). Brehm further discloses defoamers at 0.1-20wt% (see [0175]) and further discloses two different kinds of phenyl siloxanes exhibit much better defoamer activity than is the case for defoamer compositions consisting only of one kind of phenyl siloxane (see [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the two different kinds of phenyl siloxanes of Brehm in the composition of Zmiric for the purpose of achieving much better defoamer activity, as disclosed by Brehm.
With regard to claim 18, Zmiric discloses sorbic acid salts of sugar amines as suitable (see [0037]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1), as evidenced by Shell (“Neodol Alcohol Ethoxylate Product Stewardship Summary”) and TER Chemicals (“Sugar-Based Surfactants”), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ohba (US 20070213248 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Zmiric discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
However, Zmiric fails to disclose a chelating agent.
Ohba discloses a surfactant-based composition (see [0001]) and further discloses the surfactant-based composition may be used for washing laundry, an analogous art (see [0063]). Ohba further discloses N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) as a chelating agent (see [0018]) at 1-50wt% (see [0018]). Ohba further discloses N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) as a preferred chelating component having better biodegradability than ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and being highly compatible with various washing agent components (see [0045]). Ohba further discloses the inclusion of a chelating agent for the purpose of inhibiting occurrence of soap residue (see [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the chelating agent of Ohba in the composition of Zmiric for the purpose of inhibiting occurrence of soap residue, as disclosed by Ohba, and to further select N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) as the chelating agent as N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamic acid tetrasodium salt (L-glutamate diacetic acid tetrasodium salt) has better biodegradability than ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and is highly compatible with various washing agent components, as disclosed by Ohba.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 20, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 18/970,753. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are drawn to a detergent composition comprising sugar amines, anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, glucosamine HCl, and chelating agents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is free of the prior art. While Zmiric discloses sugar amine hydrochlorides as suitable, Zmiric fails to disclose glucosamine HCl specifically. Further, the closest prior art comprising glucosamine HCl is directed toward non-analogous art.
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