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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 26th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 4, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 17, and 18 have been canceled.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 15, 17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ochomogo (WO 2007133934 A1) and in further view of Ceulemans (US 20190330568 A1) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, and 13 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. Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, and 13 disclose “comprising” or “including”. This is open language. All of the above claims depend from claim 1, which states “consisting of”. This is closed language. 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 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, 3, 5-6, 9, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochomogo (WO 2007133934 A1) and in further view of Ceulemans (US 20190330568 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 13, and 15, Ochomogo teaches an aqueous cleaning composition wherein the alkyl polyglucoside comprises C8-C10 alkyl polyglucoside (see Formulation 2, page 17), nonionic surfactants at 0.75-5wt%, and further discloses alkyl polyglucosides as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0026]), preferably alkyl polyglucosides of 8-10 carbons (see [0027]). Ochomogo further teaches 1,3 propanediol at 0.1-10wt% (see [0038]). Ochomogo further teaches the composition may comprise 0-10wt% of glycerin (see [0057]). Ochomogo discloses 0.01-5wt% of an essential oil (see [0023]) and further teaches lemongrass oil as a suitable fragrance (see [0024]). Lemongrass oil is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable fragrance. Ochomogo further discloses water at levels of from at least 70wt% (see [0010]). Ochomogo further teaches additional adjuvants as colorants (see [0041]).
However, Ochomogo fails to disclose lactic acid as a suitable alpha hydroxy acid.
Ceulemans discloses a hard surface cleaning composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Ceulemans further teaches lactic acid at up 0.5-2wt%, especially where antimicrobial or disinfecting benefits are desired (see [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the up to 10wt% of lactic acid as taught by Ceulemans in the aqueous cleaning composition as disclosed by Ochomogo for the purpose of adding antimicrobial and disinfecting benefits to the composition, as disclosed by Ceulemans.
With regard to claim 17, Ochomogo teaches the aqueous cleaning composition may be packaged in any suitable materials and housings, such as aerosol containers and spray bottles or impregnated into wipes (see [0044]).
With regard to claim 19, Ochomogo teaches a method for cleaning bacon grease involving pipetting 2.5g of product onto a clean sponge and running the sponge across the length of the tile surface tested in two sets of six pass wiping cycles using only the weight of the sponge (see [0050]). Ochomogo further teaches the composition of claim 1, as shown above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, that a composition composed of the disclosed components would perform similarly under the same testing method. The disclosed testing method is analogous to the method disclosed in the instant claims, specifically applying the hard-surface liquid cleaning composition according to claim 1 to a surface in need thereof.
With regard to claim 20, Ochomogo teaches an aqueous cleaning composition comprising 93.6wt% of the cleaning composition (Formula 2 and Formula 3, page 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ochomogo fails to disclose a cleaning composition consisting of: (a) from about 2.75 wt.% to about 5.5 wt.% of decylglucoside; (b) from about 1.5 wt.% to about 3 wt.% of propanediol; (c) from about 1.012 wt.% to about 2.024 wt.% of lactic acid; (d) from about 0.5 wt.% to about 1.0 wt.% of glycerin; (e) from about 0.238 wt.% to about 0.34 wt.% of a fragrance; (f) water; and (g) an optional colorant" in claim 1 as amended. As stated above, Ochomogo teaches an aqueous cleaning composition wherein the alkyl polyglucoside comprises C8-C10 alkyl polyglucoside (see Formulation 2, page 17), nonionic surfactants at 0.75-5wt%, and further discloses alkyl polyglucosides as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0026]), preferably alkyl polyglucosides of 8-10 carbons (see [0027]). Ochomogo further teaches 1,3 propanediol at 0.1-10wt% (see [0038]). Ochomogo further teaches the composition may comprise 0-10wt% of glycerin (see [0057]). Ochomogo discloses 0.01-5wt% of an essential oil (see [0023]) and further teaches lemongrass oil as a suitable fragrance (see [0024]). Lemongrass oil is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable fragrance. Ochomogo further discloses water at levels of from at least 70wt% (see [0010]). Ochomogo further teaches additional adjuvants as colorants (see [0041]).
However, Ochomogo fails to disclose lactic acid as a suitable alpha hydroxy acid.
Ceulemans discloses a hard surface cleaning composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Ceulemans further teaches lactic acid at up 0.5-2wt%, especially where antimicrobial or disinfecting benefits are desired (see [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the up to 10wt% of lactic acid as taught by Ceulemans in the aqueous cleaning composition as disclosed by Ochomogo for the purpose of adding antimicrobial and disinfecting benefits to the composition, as disclosed by Ceulemans.
Applicant further argues unexpected results. Applicant further argues that the formulations in the examples of Ochomogo are more similar to the comparative examples. However, the entire reference, not merely the disclosed examples, must be considered. Further, the full ingredient list of the comparative examples is not given. The comparative examples share some similarities with the disclosed composition. However, without a full disclosure of the ingredients, it is impossible to determine the true cause of any discrepancy in the results. Direct comparison is impossible. Further, it is impossible to determine if, as Applicant argues, the results are unexpected or merely just what one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect based on the amounts and types of constituents in the comparative examples and disclosed compositions. Teachings must be sufficiently similar to the prior art (see MPEP 716.02(e) (II)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights