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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention. Corrections are required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite “the weight-% ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin is from about 2:1:2 to about 3:1:3” in lines 8-10, instead of “the weight-% ratio of the components in the solid tablet composition is from about 2:1:2 (anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin) to about 3:1:3”.
Claim 7 should recite “the weight-% ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate is from about 2:1:2:0.5 to about 3:1:3:1” in lines 1-3, instead of “the weight-% ratio of the components in the solid tablet composition is from about 2:1:2:0.5 (anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate) to about 3:1:3:1”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 11, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The metes and bound of the claim limitations are not clearly defined. It appears that the intended meaning may be that the limitations following the phrase “preferably” are not part of the claimed invention, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the wt-% of the anionic surfactant and/or glycerin is reduced to decrease foaming in the composition” is unclear. The metes and bound of the claim limitations are not clearly defined.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the term “stabilized foam” is unclear. It is not clear what “stabilized foam” means. The metes and bound of the claim limitations are not clearly defined.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 99/36494 to Katsuda (hereinafter “Katsuda”) in view of US 11,753,609 to Arkin et al. (hereinafter “Arkin”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Katsuda teaches a detergent composition (page 4, lines 12-17), wherein the detergent composition can be in form of a tablet (page 56, lines 7-8), the composition comprising an alkali metal carbonate alkalinity source (e.g., sodium percarbonate) (page 6, lines 24-30), an acid component (e.g., citric acid, malic acid, oxalic acid) (page 5, line 19 to page 6, line 17), anionic surfactants (e.g., alkyl benzene sulfonates) (page 9, lines 5-8), and glycerin (page 42, lines 23-25). In addition, Katsuda teaches that the composition can comprise from about 0.1% to about 50% by weight of surfactants, and up to 20% by weight of glycerin (page 38, lines 12-15, and page 42, lines 23-25).
Katsuda does not teach that the composition comprises an amphoteric surfactant comprising cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine, tauramidopropyl betaine, amidopropyl betaine, amidopropyl hydroxysultaine, sodium cocamphoacetate, sodium cocamphopropionate, cocamidopropylamine oxide, lauryldimethylamine oxide, or combinations thereof.
Arkin teaches a tablet laundry detergent composition (column 29, lines 11-14) comprising a non-ionic surfactant such as alkylbenzene sulfonate (column 15, lines 11-16), a co-surfactant including cocamidopropyl betaine (column 26, lines 36-50), glycerin (column 22, lines 24-27), and citric acid (column 28, lines 41-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition disclosed by Katsuda by inlcuding cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Katsuda teaches that the composition can comprise C12-C18 betaines surfactants (page 9, lines 16-18 of Katsuda), and Arkin teaches that it is effective to include cocamidopropyl betaine as a surfactant in a detergent composition (column 26, lines 36-50 of Arkin).
Katsuda/Arkin does not teach that the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin in the solid tablet composition is from about 2:1:2 to about 3:1:3.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition disclosed by Katsuda/Arkin wherein the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin is from about 2:1:2 to about 3:1:3, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Katsuda/Arki teaches that the composition can comprise up to 20% by weight of glycerin (page 38, lines 12-15, and page 42, lines 23-25 of Katsuda), from about 0.1% to about 50% by weight of anionic surfactants (page 9, lines 5-8 of Katsuda), from 0.1 to 2% by weight of magnesium sulfate (page 55, lines 23-25 of Katsuda), and from 2 to 9% by weight of cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant) (column 26, lines 42-50 of Arki).
Moreover, the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin is too high, it wastes the component (e.g., anionic surfactant), and/or excessive foaming is produced during the cleaning process. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate weight percent ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 2, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the acid component comprises a polycarboxylic acid (e.g., citric acid, and oxalic acid) (page 5, line 19 to page 6, line 17 of Katsuda).
Regarding claim 5, Katsuda/Arki further teaches that the composition can comprise up to 20% by weight of glycerin (page 38, lines 12-15, and page 42, lines 23-25 of Katsuda), from about 0.1% to about 50% by weight of anionic surfactants (page 9, lines 5-8 of Katsuda), and from 2 to 9% by weight of cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant) (column 26, lines 42-50 of Arki). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the composition comprises magnesium sulfate (page 55, lines 23-25 of Katsuda).
Regarding claim 7, Katsuda/Arkin does not teach that the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate in the solid tablet composition is from about 2:1:2:0.5 to about 3:1:3:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition disclosed by Katsuda/Arkin wherein the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate in the solid tablet composition is from about 2:1:2:0.5 to about 3:1:3:1, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Katsuda/Arki teaches that the composition can comprise up to 20% by weight of glycerin (page 38, lines 12-15, and page 42, lines 23-25 of Katsuda), from about 0.1% to about 50% by weight of anionic surfactants (page 9, lines 5-8 of Katsuda), from 0.1 to 2% by weight of magnesium sulfate (page 55, lines 23-25 of Katsuda), and from 2 to 9% by weight of cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant) (column 26, lines 42-50 of Arki).
Moreover, the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the weight percent ratio of the anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate is too high, it wastes the component (e.g., anionic surfactant), and/or excessive foaming is produced during the cleaning process. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate weight percent ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant to glycerin to magnesium sulfate with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 8, Katsuda/Arki further teaches that the composition can comprise up to 20% by weight of glycerin (page 38, lines 12-15, and page 42, lines 23-25 of Katsuda), from about 0.1% to about 50% by weight of anionic surfactants (page 9, lines 5-8 of Katsuda), from 0.1 to 2% by weight of magnesium sulfate (page 55, lines 23-25 of Katsuda), and from 2 to 9% by weight of cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant) (column 26, lines 42-50 of Arki). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the composition comprises from about 1% to about 50% by weight of the alkali metal carbonate alkalinity source (e.g., sodium percarbonate) (page 7, lines 4-7 of Katsuda), and from about 0.1% to about 20% by weigh of the acid component (page 6, lines 15-17 of Katsuda). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Katsuda/Arkin does not explicitly teach that the tablet is a unit dose.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition disclosed by Katsuda/Arkin wherein the tablet is a unit dose, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Katsuda teaches that the detergent composition can be made into a solid form such as a tablet (page 56, lines 7-8 of Katsuda).
Regarding claim 11, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the tablet is a detergent cleaning composition (page 56, lines 7-8 of Katsuda).
Regarding claim 12, Katsuda/Arkin does not teach that the tablet composition has a tablet hardness between about 10-40 lb·f.
However, the hardness of the tablet is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the hardness of the tablet is too low, it may crack, chip or crumble before ejection, or during handling, while if the hardness of the tablet is too high, it may not dissolve properly during the cleaning process. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate hardness of the tablet with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 13, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the composition comprises one or more additional functional ingredients (page 55, lines 14-18 of Katsuda). In regard to the limitations “optionally wherein the additional functional ingredient comprises an acetate salt in an amount from about 1 wt-% to about 20 wt-% of the composition and/or a C6 saccharide in an amount from about 1 wt-% to about 10 wt-% of the composition”, these limitations have been considered as optional components of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 14, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches an aqueous use solution of the detergent composition, wherein the detergent composition can be in form of a tablet (page 56, lines 7-8, and 18-25 of Katsuda). In addition, Katsuda/Arkin teaches that the aqueous solution has a pH of between 6.5 to 11 (page 55, lines 26-28 of Katsuda). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Katsuda/Arkin does not teach that the aqueous solution has foam with a total active surfactant concentration of less than or equal to about 1000 ppm.
However, the total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution is too high, excessive foaming is produced during the cleaning process. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 15, Katsuda/Arkin teaches a cleaning method comprising the steps of adding the detergent cleaning composition into an aqueous solution to dissolve the composition to form a use solution, wherein the detergent composition can be in form of a tablet (page 56, lines 7-8, and 17-25 of Katsuda), and contacting a surface with the use solution (page 56, lines 18-29 of Katsuda). In addition, Katsuda/Arkin teaches that the aqueous solution has a pH of between 6.5 to 11 (page 55, lines 26-28 of Katsuda). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Katsuda/Arkin does not teach that the aqueous solution has foam with a total active surfactant concentration of less than or equal to about 1000 ppm.
However, the total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution is too high, excessive foaming is produced during the cleaning process. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate total active surfactant concentration in the foam of the solution with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Katsuda/Arkin does not teach the step of forming a use solution by dissolving the tablet composition within about 15 minutes or less.
However, the amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is too high, it wastes time. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 16, Katsuda/Arkin does not teach that the step of dissolving the tablet composition to form the use solution is achieved within about 10 minutes or less is in an aqueous solution at a temperature of at least about 40°C.
However, the amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is too high, it wastes time. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of time in which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
In addition, the temperature at which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the temperature at which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is too low, it risks insufficient dissolution of the composition, while if the temperature at which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution is too high, it wastes energy. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate temperature at which the composition is dissolved to form the use solution with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 17, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the aqueous solution is water and that the use solution has a pH of between 6.5 to 11 (page 55, lines 26-28, and page 57, lines 3-10 of Katsuda). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the method of use is for consumers (page 56, line 17 to page 57, line 10 of Katsuda).
Regarding claim 19, Katsuda/Arkin further teaches that the use solution is formed in a vessel (washing machine) (page 56, line 17 to page 57, line 10 of Katsuda).
Regarding claim 20, Katsuda/Arkin does not teach that the use solution is further saturated onto a wipe, cloth, mop or other apparatus to apply to a hard surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Katsuda/Arkin wherein the use solution is saturated onto a wipe, cloth, mop or other apparatus to apply to a hard surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Arkin teaches a similar cleaning composition for cleaning laundry and hard surfaces, wherein the cleaning composition is applied on a matrix such as a substrate or sheet for cleaning a surface (column 5, lines 25-44, and column 10, lines 31-46 of Arkin).
Related References
US 2024/0002753 to Rightmire et al., teaches a solid cleaning composition including non-hydroxide alkali metal alkalinity sources, acids, water, conditioning agents, and surfactants including amphoteric, anionic and/or nonionic surfactants (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights