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 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.
Claim 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. In this case, claim 15 recites “good or excellent UV protection” while claim 18 recites “excellent UV protection”, The term “good or excellent UV protection”, or “excellent UV protection” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “good or excellent UV protection”, or “excellent UV protection” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(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 15, 18 and 23-24 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. Claim 15, 18 and 24 respectively recite an upper range of alcohol alkoxylate surfactant “about 10 wt.%” which can encompass surfactant slightly larger than 10 wt.%, such as 10.1-10.4 wt.%, while their parent claim 1 already recites a specific upper range of alcohol alkoxylate surfactant “10 wt.%”. Therefore, such limitations do not further limit their parent claim 1. Similarly, claim 23 and 24 respectively recites an upper range of xanthan gum being “about 0.45 wt.%” which encompass ranges slightly higher than 0.45 wt.%, such as 0.46 wt.%, 0.51 wt.%, but their parent claim 1 already recites a specific upper range of xanthan gum 0.45 wt.%. Therefore, such limitations do not further limit their parent claim 1. 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-10 and 15, 18, 20, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yianakopoulos (US2014/0315778).
Yianakopoulos teaches a cleaning composition comprising at least one alcohol alkoxylate non-ionic surfactant and xanthan gum, wherein the amount of xanthan gum is 0.1 to 1% by weight of the composition (para [0006], claim 3, 19), while amount of alcohol alkoxylate non-ionic surfactant is 0.1 to 15% by weight (para. [0037]), and the alcohol alkoxylate having a formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
26
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein m is 7 to 15, reads onto the claimed n in the claimed (I), formula I disclosed ethoxy group of (O-CH2-CH2) reads onto claimed m=1 in the claimed (1), and n is 1 to 15, preferably 7 to 9, such n in reference formula (I) reads onto the instantly claimed x, overlapping or within x range being 4 to 20 in claimed (I) (para [0012]-[0015], table on page 3 ). It is noted that xanthan gum is a nonionic polysaccharide gum. Yianakopoulos teaches such composition being for surface cleaning as home product (para. [0033], [0034]).
As for the claimed alcohol alkoxylate surfactant ratio to the polysaccharide gum being between 1.1:1 to 22.2:1 in claim 1, Yianakopoulos disclosed 0.1 to 1% by weight of xanthan gum and 0.1 to 15% by weight of alcohol alkoxylate (para. [0037], table on page 3) wherein such teachings suggest a weight ratio of an alcohol alkoxylate surfactant to the polysaccharide gum being with or overlapping as that of instantly claimed weight ratio of an alcohol alkoxylate surfactant to the polysaccharide gum, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). Specifically, Yianakopoulos teaches C10 ethoxylate alcohol-7EO being 4.1 wt.%, while xanthan gum being 0.5 wt% (see table on page 3 disclosed Inventive example 1-4), the weight ratio of C10 ethoxylate alcohol-7EO (an alcohol alkoxylate surfactant) to xanthan gum being 8.2.
Regarding claim 3-4 and 6-10, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, 18 and 20, Yianakopoulos already teaches overlapping content of alcohol alkoxylate surfactant and overlapping content of polysaccharide gum content, and overlapping weight ratio of alcohol alkoxylate to polysaccharide gum as those of instantly claimed as discussed above. As for claim 15 recited “home care composition demonstrates a good or excellent UV protection”, or claim 18 recited “home care composition demonstrates an excellent UV protection”, Yianakopoulos already teaches a same or substantially the same home care composition as that of instantly claimed, therefore same or substantially the same properties, i.e. “home care composition demonstrates a good or excellent UV protection”, or “home care composition demonstrates an excellent UV protection” would be expected.
Regarding claim 23 and 24, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Claims 22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yianakopoulos (US2014/0315778) as applied above, and in view of Barnabas et al (US 2005/0096239).
Yianakopoulos already teaches the cleaning composition can be applied to different substrate (para. [0003], [0029]).
Regarding claim 22 and 25-26, Yianakopoulos does not expressly teach applying such composition onto wooden surface. The teachings of Barnabas et al analogous art describing a similar composition for use on surface (specifically wood floor surface) renders same obvious.
To wit:
Barnabas et al (US 2005/0096239) discloses a composition is an aqueous floor cleaning composition to enhance the gloss to wooden floor surfaces (i.e. varnish) comprising a polymer and a surfactant (claim 1) the surfactant includes alkyl alkoxylates in ranges of 0.01 to 0.2 wt.% (see claims 9-10) or 0.001 to 0.5 wt.% [0048] and a polymer of xanthan gum (See claim 14) [0057]
The composition comprises nonionic surfactants such as Neodol 91-8 and 91-6 [0037] in amounts such as 0.001 to 0. 5 wt.% [0035]
The composition comprises optional polymers such as xanthan gum [0057] (Claim 14 of reference) Optional polymer may be used in amounts not to exceed 0.5 wt.% of the composition [0058]
(the weight percentages of the surfactant and the xanthan gum overlap and/or fall within the instantly claimed ranges as does the ratio of surfactant to xanthan gum – 0.01-0.5 wt. : 0.5 wt. or less)
The composition is an aqueous floor cleaning composition (claim 1 reference)
The composition forms a coating to protect wood surfaces from elements [0059] (meeting the limitation for coating and protecting from UV and color fading) the floor may be wood [0073]
The composition may be applied using any method known in the art diluted undiluted etc. [0061] (rendering obvious to try the forms of varnish paint or stain application to protect the floors to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention).
Per the instant specification the higher ratios of surfactant to thickener provides improved UV protection including the ratios of the instant claims See instant spec [0017-0018] and no additional UV additives are required [0087] as such the prior art composition will necessarily afford said UV protection and reduction of color fading (i.e. from exposure to UV/sun) of instant claims 22 and 25. Since the composition of the cited prior art comprises the claimed compositional components in ranges which meet and/or overlap the claimed ranges and ratios it will necessarily possess the claimed performance quality features. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Barnabas discloses gloss enhancing floor care composition are applied to a floor [0003] and leave a coating [0004] [0019]
The composition may be applied directly to the floor using any methodology known in the art [0052]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to apply the composition of Yianakopoulos as a clear coating and/or varnish to protect a wood floor from various elements to afford a gloss to the floor (i.e., varnish) as taught by Barnabas.
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on 02/10/2026 have been acknowledged thus previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Yianakopoulos failing to teach from 0.23 wt.% to 0.45 wt. % of polysaccharide gum, Yianakopoulos teaches the amount of xanthan gum (a polysaccharide gum) is 0.1 to 1% by weight of the composition (para [0006], claim 3, 19), such amount overlapping with that of instantly claimed polysaccharide gum content thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). In response to applicant’s arguments about Yianakopoulos disclosed examples showing xanthan gum content being 0.5 wt.% or 0.55 wt. %, it is noted that reference teachings are not limited by its preferred embodiment, since non-preferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art MPEP 2123, and a reference is good not only for what it teaches but also for what one of ordinary skill might reasonably infer from the teachings. In this case, Yianakopoulos already teaches an overlapping polysaccharide gum content as that of instantly claimed. Furthermore, Yianakopoulos disclosed xanthan gum content of 0.5 wt.%, which is close enough to the instantly claimed 0.45 wt.%, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness as well (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
In response to applicant’s arguments about unexpected results, i.e. table 9 of formulation comprising both alcohol ethoxylate and polysaccharide gum with high mass ratio showing UV protection as compared to formation comprising only alcohol ethoxylate or formulation comprising polysaccharide gum, the applicant is kindly reminded that evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e)). In this case, the applied closest prior art Yianakopoulos disclosed cleaning composition comprising both alcohol ethoxylate and polysaccharide gum, but comparison of a home care formulation comprising both alcohol ethoxylate and xanthan gum as compared to formulations without alcohol ethoxylate, or formulations without xanthan gum, therefore, such data does not demonstrate any comparison against the closest prior art Yianakopoulos disclosed teachings.
Next, it is noted that table 9 disclosed home care formulations having both alcohol ethoxylate and xanthan gum- only formulation 67 and 75, 84 showing specific amount (2wt.% or 1.5 wt.%) alcohol ethoxylate content, with a specific weight ratio of alcohol ethoxylate to xanthan gum being 4.4:1 or 6.5 :1, but instant claims have a much broader scope, e.g., claim 1 recites “A home care composition comprising from 0.5 wt.% to 10 wt.% of an alcohol alkoxylate surfactant wherein the weight ratio of the alcohol alkoxylate surfactant to the polysaccharide gum is between 1.1:1 and 22.2:1; wherein the alcohol alkoxylate surfactant comprises an alcohol alkoxylate of the formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
36
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein n = 6 to 18, m = 2 to 4, and x = 4 to 20; and wherein the polysaccharide gum is a nonionic polysaccharide gum. It is noted that instantly claim 1 recited alcohol alkoxylate surfactant not being limited to alcohol ethoxylate as shown in table 9, nor the claimed polysaccharide gum being limited to that claimed xanthan gum. Furthermore, table 9 disclosed data does not show when the weight ratio of alcohol ethoxylate to the xanthan gum within the claimed ratio as compared to outside the weight ratio having improved results either. Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
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 JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights