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 § 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 1-15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a non-aqueous solvent system comprising a C4-12 alditol in an amount of about 3 to about 20 wt.%, a polyethylene glycol having a number average molecular weight of from about 100 to about 1500 Daltons in an amount of about 3 to about 35 wt.%, propylene glycol in an amount of about 0.5 to about 10 wt.%”, and the claim also recites “wherein the amount of C4-12 alditol is greater than or equal to the amount of polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, or combined weight of polyethylene glycol and propylene glycol” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Given the upper limit of a C4-12 alditol of 20wt%, it would be impossible to utilize the claimed upper ranges of polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, or combined weight of polyethylene glycol and propylene glycol of 35wt%, 10wt%, and a combined weight of 45wt% respectively.
Claims 16-18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “a non-aqueous solvent system comprising sorbitol in an amount of about 3 to about 20 wt.%, a polyethylene glycol having a number average molecular weight of from about 200 to about 800 Daltons in an amount of about 3 to about 35 wt.%, propylene glycol in an amount of about 0.5 to about 10 wt.%, and glycerol in an amount of about 0 to about 20 wt.%”, and the claim also recites “wherein the amount of sorbitol is greater than or equal to the amount of polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, or combined weight of polyethylene glycol and propylene glycol” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Given the upper limit of sorbitol of 20wt%, it would be impossible to utilize the claimed upper ranges of polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, or combined weight of polyethylene glycol and propylene glycol of 35wt%, 10wt%, and a combined weight of 45wt% respectively.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coletta (US 20220186144 A1), and further in view of Hwang (KR 102028590 B1).
With regard to claims 1-11 and 14-19, Coletta discloses a unit dose pouch comprising a water soluble film and a liquid detergent encapsulated in the unit dose pouch (see Abstract). Coletta further discloses the single dose pack is sized to provide a desired quantity of wash composition for one load of laundry or one batch of dishes in a dishwasher (see [0148]). Coletta further discloses the water soluble pouch may be formed from a water soluble polymer selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) (see [0139]) and further discloses polyvinyl alcohol resins as preferred (see [0141]). Coletta further teaches the composition may comprise an additional anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an ampholytic surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant, and/or mixtures thereof (see [0081]), at least 10wt% of alcohol ethoxy sulfate (see [0080]), the alkoxylation number “n” of the AES surfactant as 1-20 (see [0079]), and 15-40wt% of nonionic surfactants (see [0094]). Coletta further discloses alcohol alkoxylated nonionic surfactants as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0089]). Coletta further discloses water at no more than 30wt% (see [0124]). Coletta further teaches 1-20wt% of polyethylene glycol at 300-500 Daltons (see [0105]-[0108]). Coletta further discloses 10-30wt% of propylene glycol and glycerin and a ratio of glycerin to propylene glycol of from 2:1 to 1:2 (See [0123]).
While Coletta fails to disclose a specific concentration of propylene glycol and glycerin individually, the ratio of glycerin to propylene glycol of from 2:1 to 1:2 and the total concentration of 10-30wt% would result in the disclosed concentrations through routine experimentation. For example, 10wt% of propylene glycol and 5wt% of glycerin would result in a total of 15wt% and would further satisfy the amounts disclosed in the instant claims. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F,2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05.
However, Coletta fails to disclose a C4-12 alditol in an amount of about 3 to about 20 wt.%.
Hwang discloses a dishwashing detergent, an analogous art (see [0001]). Hwang further discloses sorbitol and propylene glycol are used to improve the storage stability of enzymes in detergents using enzymes as cleaning materials (see [0029]). Hwang further discloses sorbitol has a moisture absorption rate slower than other additives, so it does not significantly affect the absorption and dissipation of water relative to the product, thereby maintaining the freshness and flexibility of the product and preventing drying, cracking, and weight loss, thereby improving quality and storage (see [0030]). Hwang further discloses 10.5wt% of sorbitol (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sorbitol of Hwang in the composition of Coletta. Coletta discloses a composition comprising propylene glycol. Coletta further discloses the composition may comprise enzymes (see [0144], Table 1-Table 3, and Table 5). Hwang discloses compositions comprising sorbitol and propylene glycol are used to improve the storage stability of enzymes in detergents using enzymes as cleaning materials. Hwang further discloses sorbitol has a moisture absorption rate slower than other additives, so it does not significantly affect the absorption and dissipation of water relative to the product, thereby maintaining the freshness and flexibility of the product and preventing drying, cracking, and weight loss, thereby improving quality and storage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a dishwashing detergent composition for improving the storage stability of enzymes in detergents using enzymes as cleaning materials, as taught by Hwang.
With regard to claim 12, Coletta discloses the composition may comprise a chelator at 0-5wt% (see [0126]).
With regard to claim 13, Coletta discloses, in some embodiments, the liquid composition does not contain a colorant (see [0129]) and further discloses the liquid compositions of the invention may optionally include one or more perfumes or fragrances (see [0136]). “Optionally” indicates that the perfumes and fragrances are not necessary and may be excluded from the composition.
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
/LORNA M DOUYON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights