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, 11-15,18, 26 and 36-38 are pending.
Claims 1, 36 and 37 are independent.
Claims 19-25 and 27-33 are withdrawn.
Claims 2-10, 16-17, and 34-35 are cancelled.
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Appeal Brief filed 4/9/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 11-15,18, 26 and 36-38, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. Ex Parte Prosecution is reopened because upon further consideration of the prior art, the prior art made of record do not teach or suggest the claimed pH 12.5 or greater. Upon an updated search a new grounds of rejection is set forth below with Levitt et al. (US 6,339,054 B1) col.17, example T-2 pertinent to the claims illustrating a non-bleach composition for road film removal comprising 3.65% potassium hydroxide and 31.5% lauryl dimethylamine oxide and 5% glycol ether solvent. Levitt et al. abstract guide one of ordinary skill to a finished product pH (diluted to 0.5 to 5% by weight in water) between about 9 to 13.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
Response to Appeal Brief
The rejection of claims 37-38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn upon consideration of Applicant’s arguments on page 27-28 of the Brief 4/9/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 26, 37-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osipow et al. (US 4,744,979) and MSDS for Lauryl dimethyl amine oxide https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ in view of Ryther et al. (US 2017/0306266 A1) is withdrawn upon further consideration that Osipow et al. is silent with respect to pH.
The rejection of claims 1, 26, 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osipow et al. (US 4,744,979) and MSDS for Lauryl dimethyl amine oxide https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ in view of Man et al. (US 2014/0148371) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 11-15,18, 26 and 37-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (JP2014181261A) (Google Patents translation attached) in view of Ryther (US 2017/0306266 A1) and MSDS for Lauryl dimethyl amine oxide https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ and ScienceEditorsChoice pdf available at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://zoo-web02.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/west/PDF-media/ScienceEditorsChoice_09.pdf is withdrawn upon further consideration that Saito is silent to pH.
The rejection of claims 1, 11-12, 26, 37-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al. (US 2014/0148371) as evidenced by MSDS for Lauryl dimethyl amine oxide https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ and ScienceEditorsChoice pdf available at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://zoo-web02.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/west/PDF-media/ScienceEditorsChoice_09.pdf is withdrawn upon further consideration that Man et al. teach a bleach.
The rejection of claims 13-15, 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al. (US 2014/0148371) as evidenced by MSDS for Lauryl dimethyl amine oxide https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ and ScienceEditorsChoice pdf available at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://zoo-web02.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/west/PDF-media/ScienceEditorsChoice_09.pdf and further in view of Kilkenny et al. (US 7,799,751 B2) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief filed 4/9/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 11-15,18, 26 and 36-38 have been considered. Applicant’s showing of unexpected results doesn’t appear unexpected. The cleaner is cleaning. One would expect a more alkaline/higher pH composition to have more potency. It is known in the art. See for example The PH of Cleaning PH and what it means for cleaning - Tennier Sanitation, on page2, 2nd to last paragraph provides support for the common knowledge that the higher the pH level, the more corrosive a cleaner will be. If the substance you want to remove is acidic, you’ll generally want to use an alkaline cleaner; if the substance you want to remove is alkaline, you’ll generally want to use an acidic cleaner. Both will help to bring the substance to a neutral pH, which will facilitate removal. “A greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage.” MPEP 716.02(a).
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, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt et al. (US 6,339,054 B1) as evidenced de la Coba et al. “UVA andUVB Photoprotective Capabilities of Topical Formulations Containing Mycosporine-like Amino Acids (MAAs) through Different Biological Effective Protection Factors (BEPFs)” Marine Drugs 2019, 17, 55; available at the link marinedrugs-17-00055-v3 (2).pdf
PNG
media_image1.png
686
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Levitt et al. (US 6,339,054 B1) col.17, example T-2 copied herein: illustrates a non-bleach composition for road film removal comprising 3.65% potassium hydroxide and 31.5% lauryl dimethylamine oxide and 5% glycol ether solvent which formulation encompasses claim1.
Levitt et al. abstract guides one of ordinary skill to a finished product pH (diluted to 0.5 to 5% by weight in water) between about 9 to 13 encompassing the claimed range of 12.5 or greater of the same ingredients in the same proportions as required by the independent claims.
The concept of solubilizing mycosporine or mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) secreted by an organism is met by the lauryl dimethylamine oxide surfactant based composition of Levitt et al. having an alkaline pH 9-13. See the attached evidence of common knowledge where de la Coba et al. explains high alkaline conditions (pH over 12) as encompassed by the composition of Levitt et al. promotes MAA decomposition. See last paragraph on page 8 and 1st paragraph on page 9.
Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed solubilizing of mycosporine secreted from an organism would necessarily be an effect of using the composition disclosed by Levitt et al. because Levitt et al. teach the same composition comprising KOH and LDAO and solvent in the same proportions within the claimed pH range as required by the claims.
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 cleaning composition because Levitt et al. teach a bleach free composition comprising a pH adjuster, LDAO surfactant, and solvent in similar proportions used as a cleaning agent and guides one of ordinary skill to a finished product pH (diluted to 0.5 to 5% by weight in water) between about 9 to 13 encompassing the claimed range of 12.5 or greater of the same ingredients in the same proportions.
Claims 11-12 are met by the example T-2 formulation having 9% quaternary ammonium cationic surfactant (highlighted in green below) with 31.5% lauryl dimethylamine oxide. See col.17, example T-2.
PNG
media_image2.png
686
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-15, 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt et al. (US 6,339,054 B1) as evidenced by de la Coba et al. “UVA andUVB Photoprotective Capabilities of Topical Formulations Containing Mycosporine-like Amino Acids (MAAs) through Different Biological Effective Protection Factors (BEPFs)” Marine Drugs 2019, 17, 55; available at marinedrugs-17-00055-v3 (2).pdf as applied to claims 1, 11-12 above, and further in view of Kilkenny et al. (US 7,799,751 B2).
Levitt et al. is relied upon as set forth above. Levitt et al. do not teach the limitations of claims 13-15, 18 and 26.
In the analogous art of cleaning with an LDAO surfactant, Kilkenny teach cleaning compositions comprising the same LDAO surfactant of Levitt et al. ie BARLOX-12 (col.16,ln.35-45) and guides one of ordinary skill to the dimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride of claim 13 in col.13,ln.60-67. The cationic surfactant of claims 14-15, namely, 3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl octadecycdimethyl ammonium chloride, is taught in col.13,ln.41-42. The ethylene glycol monobutyl ether of claim 18 is taught in col.24,ln.60-61. One of ordinary skill reading Kilkenny teach the claimed surfactants improve cleaning without leaving a residue. See col.24, ln.44. Kilkenny teach it is commonly known in the art that the improved cleaning compositions of the claimed ingredients can be dispensed from a liquid container, an aerosol container, a container for holding crystals or paste, which containers encompass claim 26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Levitt et al. with the surfactants of claims 13-15 and 18 and the container of claim 26 as disclosed by Kilkenny to achieve improved cleaning without leaving a residue and housing cleaning compositions in a container is well known. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Levitt et al. with that of Kilkenny et al. since both are in the analogous art of LDAO based cleaning compositions in general.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 36-38 are allowable upon consideration of applicants' information disclosure statement and consideration of the prior art. The prior art most pertinent to claims 36-38 is Levitt et al. teaching a non-bleach composition for road film removal comprising 3.65% potassium hydroxide and 31.5% lauryl dimethylamine oxide and 5% glycol ether solvent used as a cleaning agent and guides one of ordinary skill to a finished product pH (diluted to 0.5 to 5% by weight in water) between about 9 to 13 encompassing the claimed range of 12.5 or greater of the same ingredients in the same proportions. See the abstract with formulation T-2 in col.17.
However, Levitt et al. do not teach or suggest the consisting of language of claims 36-38 and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed non-bleach cleaning composition consisting of KOH, LDAO, water and glycol ether, and optionally cationic surfactants as recited by the instant claims 36-38 because Levitt et al. (claim 1) requires at least one anionic surfactant and at least one material selected from the group consisting of an alkaline agent and an acidulating agent which are excluded from the claims 36-38.
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the claimed bleach free cleaning composition having a pH 12.5 or greater consisting of 0.5 wt% to 20 wt% KOH, 0.5 wt% to 45 wt% LDAO, water and/or glycol ether and optional cationic surfactants as recited by the instant claims 36-38.
Conclusion
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