DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The claims is interpreted as a cleansing composition comprising an anionic, nonionic and a viscosity modifying agent. Additionally, the phrase “substantially free of” is interpreted broadly by the definition of applicant’s specification of less than 10%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 13-14, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Inamorato et al (3985687).
Inamorato et al disclose A liquid detergent of desired viscosity, conveniently pourable at room temperature and fluid at lower temperatures, includes polyethoxylated higher alkanol nonionic synthetic organic detergent, either polyethoxy higher alkanol sulfate or higher alkyl benzene sulfonate synthetic anionic organic detergent or a mixture of both, lower alkanol, sodium chloride, sodium nitrate and water, in certain proportions (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examples 2 teaches with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed invention.
Alternatively, the example 2 above is silent with respect to the viscosity but Inamorato et al teach that viscosity usually be in the range of 40 to 120 centipoises, preferably from 70 to 115 centipoises, more preferably 75 to 110 centipoises, most preferably for the liquid detergents based on higher alkyl benzene sulfonate as the anionic detergent component, from 75 to 90 or 95 centipoises (col. 11, lines 12-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to expect the working examples to comprise a viscosity as claimed.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (2013/0267451).
Hardy teaches an aqueous cleansing composition,
comprising: an aqueous base, and a surfactant system comprising a plurality of
surfactants dispersed in the aqueous base, the plurality of surfactants comprising one or
more anionic surfactants, one or more nonionic
surfactants or a combination thereof (see para. 0021-0022, 0050, 0085), wherein the
aqueous cleansing composition comprises a viscosity measured at about 25°C of from
about 500 cP to about 1300 cP (see para. 0027, 0042).
Hardy teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the surfactant
system comprises a combination of the one or more anionic surfactants, the one or
more amphoteric surfactants and the one or more nonionic surfactants (see para. 0036,
0050: surfactants include anionic, amphoteric and nonionic surfactants).
Hardy teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the one or
more anionic surfactants comprise an alkyl sulfonate, an alkyl ethoxy sulfate or a salt
thereof or a combination thereof (see para. 0030, 0053); claim 4, wherein the alkyl sulfonate comprises sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (DDBS) (see para. 0030); claim 4, wherein the alkyl ethoxy sulfate or a salt thereof comprises sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES) (see para. 0053).
Hardy teaches the composition of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of viscosity modifying agents, the viscosity modifying agents comprising ethanol, a poloxamer or a combination thereof (see para. 0041, 0048); wherein the poloxamer is present in an amount of from about 0.01 wt% to about 1 wt% (see para. 0041).
As to claim 20, Hardy teaches a method for preparing the aqueous cleaning composition of claim 1, the method comprising contacting the aqueous base and the surfactant system with one another (see para. 0013, 0045, 0086).
Hardy teaches the composition of claim 1 as described above but fails to explicitly disclose that the surfactant system is present in an amounts based on the total weight of the aqueous cleansing composition. However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would discover the optimum or workable ranges for the amount (wt%) of surfactant system in the composition based on routine experimentation and the disclosure of Hardy (see para. 0047: the surfactants and their amounts are selected to create a relatively constant viscosity curve when the compositions are diluted from as high as 54 wt% active surfactant ingredients (AI) to as low as 5 wt% Al; see also para. 0023). Burden is shifted to the Applicant to provide evidence that the claimed ranges produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hardy teaches the composition but fails to explicitly disclose the amount (wt%) of anionic surfactants, DDBS and SLES. However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would discover the optimum or workable ranges for the amount (wt%) of anionic surfactants in the composition based on routine experimentation and the disclosure of Hardy (see para. 0022-0023 & 0047). Burden is shifted to the Applicant to provide evidence that the claimed ranges produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hardy teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the one or more nonionic surfactants comprise a reaction product of a C9-C15 or a C9-C11 alkanol and 2.5 to 10 moles of ethylene oxide (see para. 0063-0064: nonionic surfactant class includes condensation products of an alkanol containing about 8 to 18 carbon atoms condensed with about 5 to 30 moles of ethylene oxide). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hardy teaches the composition of claim 1 as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the amount (wt%) of nonionic surfactants and weight ratios of the surfactant system. However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would discover the optimum or workable ranges for the amount (wt%) and weight ratio of surfactants in the composition based on routine experimentation and the disclosure of Hardy (see para. 0022-0023, 0047, 0050). Burden is shifted to the Applicant to provide evidence that the claimed ranges produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hardy teaches the composition as described above in the anticipation rejection, but fails to explicitly disclose the amount (wt%) of ethanol. However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would discover the optimum or workable ranges for the amount (wt%) and weight ratio of viscosity modifying agents in the composition based on routine experimentation and the disclosure of Hardy (see para. 0041). Burden is shifted to the Applicant to provide evidence that the claimed ranges produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights