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 .
Claims 1, 14-22 and 24-25 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Claims 2-13, 23, 26-33 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1,14-17, 19, 21-22 and 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshida et al. (US 9,129,901) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshida et al. (US 9,129,901) as applied to claims 1, 14-17, 19, 21-22 and 24-25 above, further in view of Dietz (US 6,972,277 B2) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2025 with respect to claims 1, 14-22 and 24-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Accordingly the claim amendments are addressed below.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
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.
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 recites language to “… selected from the Group B…” which is unclear and indefinite as there is no groups in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim 16 limitation to a mass ratio of the polysaccharide to anionic surfactant is 0.7 or more to 2 or less.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claims 17 and 19 recite material limitation to a composition comprising a conjugate acid or pH adjuster which are oxidizing agents and the independent claim 1 has been amended to exclude oxidizing agents. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 14-15 and 18, 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghodoussi (6,685,765 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ghodoussi (6,685,765 B1) teach a surface treatment composition (see col.3,ln.1-10) that is water based (see abstract) further comprising one or more water-soluble polysaccharides including hydroxyethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose (See col.10,ln.18-19). Ghodoussi is silent to wherein the one or more water-soluble polysaccharides has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 or more and 2,000,000 or less; however, it is the Examiner’s position that Ghodoussi disclosing for example the tradename CELLOSIZE guides one of ordinary skill to a wide molecular weight range including molecular weights within the claim 1, 14-15 range including 1,000,000 g/mol. See the attached search notes on CELLOSIZE. Furthermore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill is guided to the claimed molecular weight polysaccharide by Ghodoussi teaching the same hydroxyethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose as claimed in general.
Claim 1 limitation to at least one anionic surfactant having a sulfonic acid (salt) group reading upon the claimed Markush group of independent claim 1 is met by Ghodoussi teaching alkyl-sulfuric and alkyl sulfonic acid having 12 to 18 carbon atoms, alkyl-arylsulfonic acids whose alkyl chain contains from 6 to 18 carbon atoms. See col.5,ln.44-48.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the surface treatment composition does not comprise an oxidizing agent and abrasive grains is met by the art not teaching either. See also col.1,ln13-15 teaching water-based, abrasive-free, and virtually free of organic solvents.
Ghodoussi reads upon the antiseptic agent of claim 20 in col.10,ln.55-60 and example C in col.12, teaching KATHON bactericide disinfectant.
Regarding claim 25 Ghodoussi teaches one of ordinary skill to polish various surfaces with the prior art composition according to claim 1, including organosilicon polymer containing 2.5 weight percent silicon bonded OH groups encompassing material limitation to polishing of a silicon-containing material in general. See col.7,ln.35-42.
Ghodoussi do not teach wherein the one or more water-soluble polysaccharides has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 or more and 2,000,000 or less as required by claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed one or more water-soluble polysaccharides has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 or more and 2,000,000 or less as required by claim 1 because Ghodoussi teaching the same hydroxyethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose for example the tradename CELLOSIZE which is commonly known to have a wide molecular weight range including molecular weights under 1,000,000 g/mol.
Claims 1, 14-15, 18, 20-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panandiker et al. (US 2014/0335032A1).
Panandiker et al. teach a surface polish composition [0084, 0050] comprising one or more water-soluble polysaccharides reading upon the claim 1 Markush, namely hydroxypropyl cellulose [0049] on page 3 and hydroxyethyl cellulose (see example 19, [0265]). Panandiker et al. is silent with respect to the limitation wherein the one or more water-soluble polysaccharides has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 or more and 2,000,000 or less; however, one of ordinary skill reading the art understands that Natrosol 250 HHR (see footnote 1) exemplified in the formulations A-E of example 19 on page 24 is commonly understood while not explicitly stated, to have a degree of polymerization of 4,800 for Natrosol 250 HHR which implies a molecular weight of approximately 1.3 x 10^6, according to Chemistry Connection. See the attached search notes.
Panandiker et al. teach at least one anionic surfactant selected from the claimed Markush group including vinyl sulfonic acid, styrene sulfonic acid, acrylamidopropy methane sulfonic acid (AMPS) (see page 8, [0015], 5 lines from the bottom of the left column).
Panandiker et al. teach water on page 3, [0050].
Limitation to wherein the surface treatment composition does not comprise an oxidizing agent is met by Panandiker et al. exemplifying compositions without an oxidant.
Limitation to wherein the surface treatment composition does not comprise abrasive grains is met by Panandiker et al. teaching their consumer product is substantiially free of silica particles. See abstract.
Regarding the claims 14-15, Panandiker et al.’s example 19 with the common knowledge that Natrosol 250 HHR (see footnote 1) exemplified in the formulations A-E of example 19 on page 24 is commonly understood while not explicitly stated, to have a degree of polymerization of 4,800 for Natrosol 250 HHR which implies a molecular weight of approximately 1,300,000, according to Chemistry Connection. See the attached search notes encompasses the claims 14-15, and 24.
Panandiker et al. teach the pH buffer of claim 18, wherein the pH buffer includes at least hydroxyproline on page 22, [0258].
Panandiker et al. teach claim 20 limitation to an antiseptic agent on page 4, [0082] teaching liquid cleaning and disinfecting agents, including antibacterial hand-wash and the Example 12 footnote 7 on page 21 teaching one of ordinary skill to include KATHON biocide reads upon the claim limitation.
Claim 21-22 and 24 limitations to the pH of 7 or more is met by Panandiker et al. example 23 guiding one of ordinary skill to a pH of 8.2. [0269].
Panandiker et al. do not teach wherein the one or more water-soluble polysaccharides has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 or more and 2,000,000 or less as required by claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed one or more water-soluble polysaccharides has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 or more and 2,000,000 or less as required by claim 1 because Panandiker et al. teach the same hydroxyethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose of the Markush in claim 1 and further guide one of ordinary skill to, for example, the tradename Natrosol 250 HHR which is commonly understood to have a molecular weight a molecular weight of approximately 1,300,000 encompassing the claimed range.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Panandiker et al. (US 2014/0335032A1) as applied to claims 1, 14-15, 18, 20-22 and 24-25 above and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US2015/0376464A1).
Panandiker et al. do not teach wherein a mass ratio of the one or more water-soluble polysaccharides to the anionic surfactant is selected from 0.70 or more and 2 or less as required by claim 16. Examiner notes that Panandiker et al. guide one of ordinary skill in example 19 to use HEC in a range of 0.3-0.7% and guide in [0177] to anionic surfactants in a range from about 5% which is outside the claimed ratio.
In the analogous silicon polishing art, Tsuchiya et al. (US2015/0376464A1) [0075] teach that it is commonly known that the mass ratio (W1/W2) of water-soluble polymer content W1 to surfactant content W2 is not particularly limited. Usually, it is suitably in a range of 0.01 to 200, or preferably, for instance, in a range of 0.1 to 100. In a preferable embodiment, W1/W2 can be, for instance, in a range of 0.01 to 20, preferably in a range of 0.05 to 15, or more preferably in a range of 0.1 to 10. See page 8, [0075] for a teaching the claimed ratio does not change the composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Panandiker et al. with the claimed mass ratio of the one or more water-soluble polysaccharides to the anionic surfactant is selected from 0.70 or more and 2 or less as required by claim 16 because Tsuchiya et al. (US2015/0376464A1) [0075] establish that the mass ratio (W1/W2) of water-soluble polymer content W1 to surfactant content W2 is not particularly limited, nor provide a contribution over the art of record because optimizing the cellulose and the acid is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Panandiker et al. with that of Tsuchiya et al. since both are in the analogous polishing composition art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights