Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 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
2 Claims 2-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2-14 recite the limitations “The composition according to claim 1”.
Claims 2-14 should recite the limitation “The liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3 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.
4 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruth et al. (EP 4484536 A1).
Ruth et al. (EP’ 536 A1) teaches a surfactant system comprising from 8% to 45% by weight of a liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition as claimed in claims 1 and 15 (see page 44, paragraph, 0340), wherein the surfactant system include alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant in the amount of 70% to 80% by weight of the surfactant system as claimed in claims 16 and 17 (see page 44, paragraph, 0340), wherein the alkyl sulfated anionic surfactant has an average degree of alkoxylation of less that about 3 and wherein the anionic surfactant is a branched anionic surfactant and having a weight average degree of branching of more than 10% as claimed in claims 18 and 19 (see page 44, paragraph, 0340) and wherein the composition also comprises co-surfactants include amphoteric surfactant and zwitterionic surfactant and wherein the anionic surfactant to the co-surfactant weight ratio from 1:1 to 8:1 as claimed in claim 20 (see page 45, paragraph, 0341), wherein the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition also comprises an alkoxylated polyol comprise a polyol core consisting essentially of three to five -OH groups, wherein at least one of the -OH groups is modified to form a polypropylene oxide branch comprises at polypropylene oxide units and polyethylene oxide as claimed in claims 1-3 (see page 17, paragraph, 0135 and page 4, formula A1), wherein the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyol is in the range of 1200 to 4500 g/mol as claimed in claim 1 (see page 9, paragraph, 0068), and wherein the polyol include the alkylene oxide units and propylene oxide units as claimed in claim 2-4 (see page 4, paragraph, 0024, formulae (A1) or (A2)), wherein the alkoxylated polyol comprises at least 8 ethylene oxide (EO) units and at least 14 propylene oxide (PO) units as claimed in claims 5-7 (see page 4, paragraph, 0024), wherein the molecular weight of the polymer backbone is within 500 g/mol and the weight average molecular weight is in the range from 1 to 2.5 g/mol as claimed in claims 8 and 9 (see claims 8 and 9) and wherein the polyol core selected from the group consisting of glycerol, meso-Erythritol, D-threitol, L-threitol and 1,2,5,6-hexanetetrol as claimed in claim 10 (see claim 15).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Ruth et al. (EP’ 536 A1) by reciting a liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition comprising a surfactant system comprises anionic surfactant and alkoxylated polyols in the amounts that overlapped with reference’s amounts.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amounts of detergent’s ingredients in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the detergent composition, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a detergent composition to have similar property and similar results to those claimed in the absence of unexpected results.
5 Claims 1-3, 10-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch (US 4492646 A).
Welch (US, 646 A) teaches a liquid dishwashing composition comprising 10-50 % by wt., anionic surfactant and an alkoxylated polyol nonionic surfactant (V) comprises 17 wt., % pluridol HA 430 triol (glycerol) (EO (30-70 wt.,%) PO (30-70 wt.,%) Mw 3700-4200 as claimed in claims 1-3, 10-13 and 15-16 (see claim 1 and example V).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Welch (US, 646 A) by reciting a limitation iv “a propylene oxide content is at least about 50% by weight in relation to a total weight of the alkoxylated polyol.
However, Welch (US, 646 A) teaches alkoxylated polyol nonionic surfactant includes PO (propylene oxide) in the range of 30-70 wt., (see example V).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Welch (US, 646 A), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amount of the propylene oxide units in the alkoxylated polyol in the detergent composition in order to get the maximum effective amount of the propylene oxide units in the alkoxylated polyol, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a detergent composition to have similar results to those claimed in the absence of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights