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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typo 1: In claim 20 line 1, “wherein anionic surfactant” should read “wherein the anionic surfactant”.
Typo 2: In claim 9 line 2, “is comprises” should read “comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Sun (EP 3858962 A1), in further view of Steinburg (“Water Activity”) and Perez-Prat (US 20120225802 A1).
With regard to claims 1-6 and claims 9-16, Sun discloses a liquid detergent composition (see Abstract) and further discloses the composition may be a dishwashing detergent, which is a detergent formulated for washing or cleaning dishware, drinking glasses, eating or cooking utensils, etc. (see [0010]). Sun further discloses the composition as comprising less than 30wt% of water (see Abstract). Sun further discloses 15-30wt% of an alcohol ethoxylate (see [0005]). Sun further teaches glycerol as a non-aqueous solvent (see [0031]) at 10-40wt% (see [0032]) and further teaches non-aqueous solvents as water-binding agents to reduce water activity of the composition (see [0030]). Sun further teaches the liquid detergent is free from linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (see [0022]), may comprise a preservative (see [0047]), and may comprise propylene glycol (see [0031]). “May” indicates that the compound is not necessary and may be excluded from the overall composition. Sun further discloses a neutralizing agent chosen from monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, isopropylamine, and/or the like (see [0037]).
However, Sun fails to disclose a saccharide derivative.
Perez-Prat discloses a method of manually cleaning dishware using a liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Perez-Prat further discloses the composition and the use of a liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition to deliver a positive skin care benefit, more specifically a positive skin feel benefit, and an improvement of skin appearance, especially to the skin of hands, during a manual dishwashing operation (see [0020]). Perez-Prat further discloses 1-20wt% of a humectant and sorbitol as a preferred humectant (see [0089]-[0090]). Perez-Prat further discloses humectants as useful to help enhance the absorption of water onto a substrate, preferably skin (see [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sorbitol of Perez-Prat in the dishwashing composition of Sun. Sun discloses a dishwashing composition and Perez-Prat discloses a dishwashing composition and the use of a liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition to deliver a positive skin care benefit, more specifically a positive skin feel benefit, and an improvement of skin appearance, especially to the skin of hands, during a manual dishwashing operation. Perez-Prat further teaches humectants as useful to help enhance the absorption of water onto a substrate, preferably skin, and further teaches sorbitol as a preferred humectant. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a dishwashing composition capable of delivering a positive skin care benefit using sorbitol, as disclosed by Perez-Prat.
While Sun fails to disclose a specific water activity, Sun further teaches glycerol as a non-aqueous solvent (see [0031]) at 10-40wt% (see [0032]) and further teaches non-aqueous solvents as water-binding agents to reduce water activity of the composition (see [0030]).
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 glycerin lowers water activity (see paragraph 9). Steinburg further discloses the typical water activities of various personal care products (see Table 3) and further discloses high levels of glycols can be used to lower the water activity below 0.7 to avoid the need for additional preservatives (see Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to maintain the water activity below 0.7, as disclosed by Steinberg, in the composition of Sun, for the purpose of reducing mold growth, as disclosed by Steinberg. Therefore, it stands to reason that the glycerin of Sun would result in lower water activity, as disclosed by Steinburg.
With regard to claim 7 and claim 8, Sun discloses less than 30wt% of water (see Abstract) and glycerol as a non-aqueous solvent (see [0031]) at 10-40wt% (see [0032]).
However, Sun does not explicitly teach the ratio of glycerin to water is about 60 to about 40.
With respect to the ratio of glycerin to water as 60:40 considering that Sun teaches glycerol in the range of 10-40wt% as disclosed in [0032] and water in the range of less than 30wt% as disclosed in [Abstract], 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. 15 wt% glycerol: 12.3 wt% fragrance or 55:45). Optimization or even simply varying of the relative amounts within the prior art’s general conditions amounts to routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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.
With regard to claim 17, Sun discloses a neutralizing agent chosen from an alkanolamine, a hydroxide, and combinations thereof (see [0037]). Sun further discloses sodium hydroxide as a suitable neutralizing agent (see [0037]).
With regard to claim 18, Sun discloses blends of two or more enzymes may be used, such as a protease/lipase blend, a protease/amylase blend, a protease/amylase/lipase blend, etc. (see [0039]).
With regard to claim 19, Sun discloses a plurality of surfactants, including anionic surfactants (see [0022]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (EP 3858962 A1), and further in view of Steinburg (“Water Activity”) and Perez-Prat (US 20120225802 A1), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of ERASM (“Environmental fact Sheet (#6)”).
With regard to claim 20, Sun discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
However, Sun fails to disclose the anionic surfactant as an alcohol ethoxylate.
ERASM discloses C12-C14 E2S sodium salts (see IUPAC Name). ERASM further discloses alcohol ether sulphates as a widely used class of anionic surfactants (see Product and Process Description). ERASM further discloses AES are used by the personal care, household, agriculture, oilfield, mining, coatings and lubricant industries and further discloses that their properties make them particularly well‐suited for use in shampoos, bath and shower products, body cleansing products, manual dish detergents, etc. (see Application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the AES of ERASM in the liquid detergent composition of Sun as Sun discloses anionic surfactants and AES are a widely used class of anionic surfactants and their properties make them particularly well‐suited for use in shampoos, bath and shower products, body cleansing products, and manual dish detergents, as disclosed by ERASM.
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