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 Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: The ratio about 60 to about 40 and about 55 to about 45 should be changed to 60:40 and 55:45 for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Piorkowski et al, US 2019/0233768.
Piorkowski et al teach a unit-dose detergent composition comprising 25% glycerin, NaOH, triethanolamine, IDS chelant, enzymes, C12-15 EO7, C12-14 AE3S, and 15% water (ratio of glycerin to water 1.67) (¶120, example K).
Another example comprises 30% glycerin, triethanolamine, IDS chelant, enzymes, C12-15 EO7, C12-14 AE3S, fatty acid, and 10.5% water (ratio of glycerin to water 1.57) (¶118, tables 3 and 4, formula F).
The examiner acknowledges that these are comparative examples, nevertheless they are identical to the claimed invention and so the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to the water activity, as the example contains 15% free water, the examiner maintains this limitation is satisfied.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 14, 17, and 18 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 Kong et al, US 2023/0374424.
Kong et al teach a unit-dose laundry detergent comprising ethoxylated alcohol, alkyl ether sulfate, glycerin, 36% water and monoethanolamine (¶92, table 11). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to the water activity, as the example contains 36% free water, the examiner maintains this limitation is satisfied.
In the alternative, Kong et al teach their composition as having a water activity of from 0.34 to 0.64 (see abstract). The examiner maintains 0.64 satisfies the “about 0.66” claimed, and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the composition of table 11 with a water activity of 0.64 with confidence of forming an effective laundry detergent.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piorkowski et al, US 2025/0136899.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Piorkowski et al teach a unit-dose detergent composition comprising 18.37% glycerin, PEG400, C12-15 EO7, AE3S, monoethanolamine, amylase and protease enzyme, and 10.5% water (ratio of glycerin to water 1.75) wherein this composition has a pH of 7.7 (¶223, formula 12).
As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to the water activity, as the example contains 15% free water, the examiner maintains this limitation is satisfied.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehr, US 2022/0340844.
Zehr teaches a laundry detergent comprising from 5 to 20% water, nonionic surfactant, anionic surfactant, 15-25% humectant, and MEA/TEA for pH control (¶55, table 2). The nonionic surfactant may be a single surfactant which is an ethoxylated alcohol (claim 6), the anionic surfactant may be a single surfactant which is an alkyl ether sulfate (claim 10) and the humectant may be a single humectant which is glycerin (claim 14). Enzymes and chelants are suitable additives of the invention (¶51). It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to formulate a composition comprising 20% water, 25% glycerin (glycerin to water ratio 1.25), alcohol ethoxylate, alkyl ether sulfate and MEA/TEA with confidence of forming an effective laundry detergent as all of these components are taught as preferred by the reference.
With respect to the water activity, the examiner maintains a composition comprising 20% free water satisfies this limitation.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guttentag, US 2023/0365892.
Guttentag teaches a unit dose liquid laundry detergent comprising ethoxylated alcohol, alkyl ether sulfate, dipropylene glycol, glycerin, 6.9% water and monoethanolamine (¶71, table 1). These compositions may have a free water content as high as 15% (¶19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the composition of table 1 with 15% water as this amount of water is taught as suitable for forming non-aqueous liquid laundry detergents.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, these compositions may contain enzymes and chelants (¶64) and have a pH from 7 to 8.5 (¶60).
With respect to the water activity, the examiner maintains a composition comprising 15% free water satisfies this limitation.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al, US 2023/0374424.
Kong et al are relied upon as set forth above. The pH of these compositions is in the range of 7-10 (see abstract) and these compositions may contain a chelating agent (¶61). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the composition of table 1 with a pH of 7 and a chelant as this pH and a chelant are contemplated by the reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights