DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed August 29, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 7, 8 and 10. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 17-22 remain withdrawn from consideration. Currently, claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-22 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20250526.
The rejection of claims 7, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Naqvi, US 2020/0377827, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maaser, U.S. Patent No. 5,035,814, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Biancamaria et al, EP 1149945, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton, US 2006/0166854.
Britton, US 2006/0166854, discloses a cleaning composition based on an aqueous or non-petroleum solvent for removing greasy soils from polymer surfaces (see abstract and paragraph 2). It is further taught by Britton that the composition contains 1-10 parts by weight of at least one fatty acid methyl ester, 10-35 parts by weight of at least one ethoxylated alcohol having an HLB ranging from 10-14, 1-10 parts by weight of at least one alkyl polyglycoside having an HLB ranging from 10-14, 10-25 parts by weight of at least one hydrotrope, 0.1-1 parts by weight of an alkali metal silicate, 0.1-2 parts by weight of at least one corrosion inhibitor, and 30-1000 parts by weight of water (see paragraphs 7-14), that suitable ethoxylated alcohols include a blend of 1-10 parts by weight of C8-10 ethoxylated alcohols and 10-25 parts by weight of C9-11 ethoxylated alcohols (see paragraph 18), and that the composition further contains 0.01 parts by weight of an alkali metal hydroxide (see paragraph 21), and builders (see paragraph 25). Specifically, note Formulae 1-17 in Table 1 and Examples 1-18. Although Britton generally discloses a cleaning composition for removing greasy soils from polymer surfaces containing 0.01 parts by weight of an alkali metal hydroxide and 1000 parts by weight of water (i.e., resulting in a composition containing 0.001% by weight of an alkali metal hydroxide), the reference does not require such cleaning compositions containing this amount of alkali metal hydroxide with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a cleaning composition, as taught by Britton, which contained 0.001% by weight of an alkali metal hydroxide, because such cleaning compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Britton. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a cleaning composition containing 0.001% by weight of an alkali metal hydroxide is expressly suggested by the Britton disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that the removal of greasy soils from polymer surfaces taught by Britton meets the instant claim limitation of “reducing hydrophobic soil from a textile”, since certain textiles, such as polyesters, are polymer based.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-22 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.
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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
November 1, 2025