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.
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, 3-4, 6-12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 20210340471 A1) and further in view of Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 6, and 14-16, Piorkowski discloses a pouch formed from a water-soluble film and the pouch defines at least one compartment (see [0050]). Piorkowski further discloses liquid detergents, including laundry and dishwasher liquid detergents (see [0002]). Piorkowski further discloses the disclosed detergent is releasably disposed or encapsulated within the at least one compartment (see [0050]). Piorkowski further discloses 20-50wt% of surfactants and further discloses the surfactants may be anionic and/or nonionic (see [0018]). Piorkowski further discloses the composition may comprise less than 30wt% of water (see [0030]) and may further comprise a non-aqueous solvent at 10-40wt% (see [0033]). Piorkowski further discloses the non-aqueous solvent may comprise glycerol and polyethylene glycol at 200-3000 g/mol, preferably glycerol (see [0032]).
However, Piorkowski fails to disclose a sugar amine in an amount ranging from about 0.025 to about 2 wt% of the detergent composition.
Zmiric discloses a home care composition (see Abstract) comprising 0.1-2wt% of sugar amine (see [0079]). Zmiric further discloses sugar amines advantageously show an excellent performance as a complexing agent in cosmetic and home care applications (see [0007] and [0009]). Zmiric further discloses complexing agents can bind metals and help stabilize products against the effects of metal contamination (see [0003]). Zmiric further discloses complexing agents are advantageous as metal contamination may promote oxidation reactions, impair the foaming properties of surfactants, potentially cause discoloration, or enhance microbial contamination in cosmetic functions and home care formulations (see [0003]). Zmiric further discloses sorbic acid salts of sugar amines are suitable (see [0037]) and further discloses 0.1-2wt% of sugar amine in a home care composition (see [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sugar amine complexing agents of Zmiric in the liquid detergents of Piorkowski. Piorkowski discloses a liquid detergent. Zmiric discloses complexing agents as known in the art and further discloses sugar amines as having excellent performance as complexing agents. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a liquid detergent for home care use with low oxidation reactions, good foaming properties, low discoloration, or decreased microbial contamination through the use sugar amine complexing agents, as disclosed by Zmiric.
With regard to claim 3, Piorkowski discloses a chelator at 0.9wt% (see Table 1).
With regard to claim 7, Piorkowski discloses the composition may may include enzymes, proteases, amylases, lipases, and cellulases and further discloses a blend of protease and amylase as a preferred blend (see [0040]).
With regard to claim 8 and claim 9, Piorkowski discloses the composition may comprise sodium hydroxide in an amount of from about 4 to about 10wt% (see [0015]).
With regard to claim 10, Piorkowski discloses polyvinyl alcohol as a suitable material for the water-soluble film (see [0052]).
With regard to claim 11, Piorkowski discloses the pH of the detergent is from about 6 to about 8 (see [0013]).
With regard to claim 12, Piorkowski discloses the composition may further include a suspension polymer (see [0034]) and further discloses the suspension polymer may be an ethoxylated polyethyleneimine (see [0036]).
With regard to claim 19, Piorkowski discloses the non-ionic surfactant may be alcohol ethoxylate (see [0021]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 20210340471 A1) and Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arita (JP 2007008976 A) and Mole (US 20190382690 A1).
With regard to claim 2, Piorkowski and Zmiric disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Piorkowski further discloses a fatty acid at about 4 wt% to about 10wt% (see [0017]). Piorkowski further discloses the composition may include one or more anionic surfactants other than linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (see [0020]). Piorkowski further discloses 0.01-0.1wt% of a bittering agent and further discloses denatonium benzoate as a suitable bittering agent (see [0037]).
However, Piorkowski and Zmiric fail to disclose a denatured alcohol at 0.5-6wt%.
Arita discloses a household cleaning agent, an analogous art (see [0001]). Arita further discloses 0.1-5wt% of solvents and further discloses ethanol as a suitable solvent (see [0019]). Arita further discloses ethanol as preferred due to its versatility, economy, and usability during wiping (odor and slow drying) (see [0017]). Arita further discloses denatured ethanol as containing a denaturing agent so as to make the composition unsuitable for drinking (see [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the denatured ethanol of Arita in the composition of Piorkowski and Zmiric. Piorkowski teaches a liquid detergent composition. Arita discloses a household cleaning composition comprising denatured ethanol for the purpose of making the composition unsuitable for drinking. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a liquid detergent composition unsuitable for drinking with the denatured ethanol, as disclosed by Arita.
Piorkowski and Zmiric further fail to disclose lauryl sulfate and/or lauryl ether sulfate.
Mole discloses a liquid detergent composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Mole further discloses 5-20wt% of surfactants (see [0059]) and further discloses a blend of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and sodium lauryl ether sulfate as preferred (see [0079]). Mole further discloses nonionic surfactants (see [0078]) and polyethylene glycol and glycerol (see [0097]).
Both the compositions of Piorkowski and Zmiric and the composition of Mole are liquid detergents. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because the composition of Piorkowski and Zmiric comprises anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, glycerol, and polyethylene glycol. Further, the composition of Mole likewise comprises anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, glycerol, and polyethylene glycol. As stated above, both the composition of Piorkowski and Zmiric and the composition of Mole are liquid detergents. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the sodium lauryl ether sulfate as taught by Mole with the cleaning composition as taught by Piorkowski and Zmiric to produce a liquid detergent.
Further, Piorkowski discloses the composition may include one or more anionic surfactants other than linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (see [0020]) and Mole discloses a blend of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and sodium lauryl ether sulfate as preferred (see [0079]). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the linear alkylbenzene sulfonate of Piorkowski with the sodium lauryl ether sulfate of Mole as Piorkowski discloses the composition may include one or more anionic surfactants other than linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (see [0020]) and Mole discloses a blend of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and sodium lauryl ether sulfate as preferred (see [0079]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 20210340471 A1) and Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piombino (US 20190153358 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Piorkowski and Zmiric disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Piorkowski and Zmiric fail 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 Piorkowski and Zmiric. Piorkowski discloses the pH of the detergent is from about 6 to about 8 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 17 and claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 20210340471 A1) and Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinberg (“Water Activity”).
With regard to claim 17 and claim 18, Piorkowski and Zmiric disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Piorkowski fails to disclose a water activity ranging from 0.5 to 0.7, Piorkowski discloses the non-aqueous solvent serves as a water-binding agent to reduce water activity of the composition, reduces water transfer of the composition to the surrounding water-soluble container of the unit dose detergent pack to avoid swelling and/or leakage through the water-soluble film material of the container (see [0031]).
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 0.6 is the minimum water activity needed for mold growth (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to maintain the water activity at below 0.6, as disclosed by Steinberg, in the composition of Piorkowski. Piorkowski discloses the non-aqueous solvent serves as a water-binding agent to reduce water activity of the composition, reduces water transfer of the composition to the surrounding water-soluble container of the unit dose detergent pack to avoid swelling and/or leakage through the water-soluble film material of the container. Steinburg discloses 0.6 is the minimum water activity needed for mold growth. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the non-aqueous solvent of Piorkowski would result in lower water activity, as disclosed by Piorkowski, and one having ordinary skill in the art would desire a low water activity, particularly below 0.6, to prevent mold growth, as disclosed by Steinberg.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 20210340471 A1) and Zmiric (EP 4245293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dhawan (US 20230192929 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Piorkowski and Zmiric disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Piorkowski and Zmiric fail 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 Piorkowski and 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.
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, 3-5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 18/970,733. 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 5 is free of the prior art. While Zmiric discloses sugar amine hydrochlorides as suitable, Piorkowski and Zmiric fail 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