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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement contains strikethroughs, since no office actions have been posted in applications 18/983684, 18/983664 or 18/983690.
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(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by EP 0006271.
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘271 teaches a granular detergent composition a first and second optical brightener, wherein the first optical brightener comprises a stilbene functional group (see brightener (2) in example VII) and a second optical brightener ((2) in example VII) which does not contain a stilbene group or SO3 group. The amounts of optical brightener (1) is 0.2 and the amount of optical brightener (2) is 0.04 which gives a ratio of 5:1, which is clearly within the range claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, EP ‘271 teaches that the optical brighteners can be at levels of up to 3% of the composition (page 15, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 5, EP ‘271 teaches the second optical brightener is bis(benzoxazole-2-yl)thiophene.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 9, Example VII of EP ‘271 teaches anionic surfactant sodium dodecyl benzene sulphonate and nonionic surfactants Dobanol 45-7 and tallow alcohol EO80 which are both fatty alcohol ethoxylates.
Regarding claim 10, the Dobanol 45-7 is shown at a level of 12%, and Tallow Alcohol EO80 is shown at a level of 1%, thus the total of 13% is within the scope of the 0.1 to 40% claimed.
Regarding claim 16, the granules may be formed by spray drying (page 21, line 4).
Regarding claim 17, the optical brighteners must be in the same or different granules. Furthermore, Example VII discloses a single formulation indicating that the first and second optical brighteners would be in the same granule.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Lant (US 2016/00319228).
Regarding claims 1-4, Lant teaches a granular detergent composition of Formula 26, which comprises an optical brightener 1 within the scope of claim 4 (0231) and an optical brightener 3 Optiblanc SPL 10 (233), which is a brightener which does not contain stilbene or SO3 groups.
Regarding claim 2, the optical brightener 1 is at a level of 0.25%, within the claimed range.
Regarding, claim 3, the optical brightener 3 is at a level of 0.06%, within the claimed range.
The ratio of optical brightener 1 to optical brightener 3 is thus 4.16, thus failing within the 3:3 to 8:1 claimed.
The following below are in regard to composition 26.
Regarding claims 6-8, Lant teaches the use of LAS (an alkyl benzene sulfonate (0227)) at a level of 5.05%.
Regarding claims 6, 9 and 10, Lant teaches the use of AE7 (which is a fatty alcohol ethoxylate (0211)) at a level of 5.95%.
Regarding claims 11-13, lant teaches the use of a soil release agent Repel-O-Tex ((0248) which is s polyester soil release agent) at a level of 0.72%.
Regarding claim 14, Lant teaches the use of hueing agent Violet DD.
Regarding claim 16, Lant teaches the composition may be in the form of flakes (0012). Also since the composition is granular, although spray dried granules are claimed, such is a product by process, wherein the method of making the granules does not distinguish (MPEP2113).
Regarding claim 17, the optical brighteners must be in the same or different granules. Furthermore, Example 26 discloses a single formulation indicating that the first and second optical brighteners would be in the same granule.
Regarding claim 18 and 20, Lant teaches that the detergent may be in the form of being contained in a water soluble pouch (0004). Lance further teaches that the pouch may be made of plastics and celluloses (0189). The film of the pouch can be formed by casting or blow-molding, and as such would be non-woven materials.
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.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 2016/00319228) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WO 2014/055245.
Regarding claim 15, As noted above, Lant teaches that Violet DD can be used as a hueing dye in granular detergent compositions (see example 26). Lant differs from the present invention in that a level of Violet DD at a concentration of 0.1 to 10% is not taught. WO ‘245 teaches a detergent which can comprise granules, and that Hueing dyes such as Violet DD can be used at levels of about 0.00003 to 0.3% (page 13, lines 1-13). Given the teaching of WO ‘245, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize hueing dyes at levels of up to 0.3%, since one of ordinary skill would have the expectation that such levels would lead to success in effectively provide hueing ability to the detergent of Lant.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 2016/00319228) as applied to claim 1.
Lant is taught with respect to claims 1 and 18 above. Lant differs from the present invention in not specifying the use of recycled materials. It is ubiquitous in manufacturing to utilize recycled polymeric materials to protect the environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize recycled polymeric materials, even at levels of 50% or greater, in the invention of Lant in order to achieve the goal of creating a cleaner environment.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/983,664( reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 2 of 18/983,664 teach the same optical brighteners in overlapping amounts as claims 1, 4 an5 of the current application, rendering them obvious, and claims 3, 4 and 6-20 claim the same compounds and percentages as claims 3, 4 and 6-20 of the current application..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No18/983,684 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3 – 6 teach a hueing agent and the same optical brighteners with overlapping ranges as claims 1-5 and 14 of the current application, rendering these ranges obvious. Claim 3 of 18/983,684 teaches a hueing dye at the same concentration as claim 15 of the current application. Claims 8-20 teach the same components and concentration as claims6-13 and 16-20 thus rendering these claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/983,690 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-10 teach a soil release polymer and the same optical brighteners with overlapping ranges as claims 1-5 and 11-13 of the current application, rendering these ranges obvious. Claim 5 of 18/983,684 teaches a soil release polymer at the same concentration as claim 13 of the current application. Claims 11-20 teach the same components and concentration as claims 6-10 and 14-19 thus rendering these claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights