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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11-15,18, 26 and 36-38 are pending. Claims 36-38 are new.
Claims 19-25 and 27-33 are withdrawn.
Claims 2-10, 16-17, and 34-35 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 36 and 37 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/2/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 11-15,18, and 26 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s urge on pages 8-9 of their remarks that neither Saito et al. nor Ryther et al. exemplify potassium hydroxide and lauryl dimethlamine oxide in any working examples and instead teach the claimed components as optional.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further in response, Saito et al. is prior art in a 103 combination rejection guiding one of ordinary skill to potassium salt and sodium hydroxide pH adjusters with lauryl dimethylamine oxide. Because Saito et al. does not explicitly teach the claimed potassium hydroxide it is properly combined with Ryther et al. guiding one of ordinary skill to the claimed potassium hydroxide [0018] and a dimethyl alkyl amine oxide (see claims 58 and 65) encompassing the claimed lauryl dimethylamine oxide as taught by Saito et al. and Ryther teach the claimed embodiments effectively removes polymerized soils at pH 12 or greater as claimed. See page 3, [0016].
Applicant;s urge on page 12 that Man et al. does not teach a bleach free composition. In response, [0085] teaches one of ordinary skill that a bleach may be included and as cited in the office action, [0085] copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
104
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
guides one of ordinary skill that bleach is optional since none of the exemplary formulations in tables A-F have a bleach.
Applicant’s urge that Kilkenny does not teach the combination of potassium hydroxide with lauryl dimethylamine oxide. As noted above, with respect to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further in response, Kilkenny et al. is prior art in a 103 combination rejection with Man et al. already teaching the claimed potassium hydroxide and LDAO further guiding one of ordinary skill to the limitations of claims 13-15 and 18 since Kilkenny teach cleaning compositions comprising the same LDAO surfactant of Man 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.
Accordingly, the combination rejection is maintained below.
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.
Claims 37-38 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. Claims 37-38 recite material limitation to consisting of language with the term optionally, making the claim unclear and indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, “consisting of” in claim 37 and “consists of” is interpreted as comprising a cationic surfactant as is supported by the claim 38, narrowing of the optional component of claim 37. Appropriate correction of the “consisting of” language in claim 37 to ‘comprising’ and “consists of” language to ‘further comprising’ in claim 38 is required.
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, 26, 37-38 are rejected 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).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 37, Osipow et al. example 1, in col.7 illustrate a shaving cream composition comprising 6.2 wt % potassium hydroxide with 22.5% lauryl dimethylamine oxide See example 1 in col.7, lines 30-45.
Claims 1 and 37 limitations to a solvent is met by the example 1 teaching 360 parts by weight water.
Limitation of claims 1 and 37 to a non-bleach cleaning composition is met by the reference not using any bleach.
Claims 1 and 37 limitations to wherein the cleaning composition solubilizes mycosporine or mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) secreted by an organism is met by Osipow et al. disclosing the same ingredients (potassium hydroxide and LDAO and solvent) in the same proportions which one of ordinary skill will reasonably expect to arrive at the same solubilizations as claimed. Furthermore, the concept of solubilizing mycosporine or mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) secreted by an organism is also met by the lauryl dimethylamine oxide surfactant of Osipow et al. being a plant metabolite and a detergent. See the https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ teaching the claimed LDAO has a role as a plant metabolite and a detergent. See the ScienceEditorsChoice pdf explaining the role of surfactants in relation to mycosporine as claimed is neither novel nor patentable. Specifically, the box on the top left, states “a sticky green froth exuded from the algae that contained surfactant mycosporine like amino acids, which acted like a detergent”, 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 LDAO surfactant based detergent as disclosed by Osipow et al.
Osipow et al. is silent as to the cleaning composition having a pH of 12.5 or greater as required in claims 1 and 37.
In the analogous bleach free detergent composition art, Ryther et al. (US 2017/0306266 A1) teach a bleach free composition having greater than 12 pH with the claimed scope of categories of ingredients removes polymerized soils effectively. See page 3, [0016], Ryther et al. tables 7, 8 and 23 illustrating bleach-free, caustic cleaning composition comprising dimethyl alkyl amine oxide (see claim 58), potassium hydroxide (see [0018], claim 56) both ingredients as taught by Osipow et al. also effectively removes polymerized soils at pH 12 or greater as claimed. Ryther teach the combination of high alkalinity to open up or wet the soils and agents normally effective for chelating / sequestering and inhibiting redeposition of metal cations appear to support the break down of these polymerized zero trans fat soils. [See 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osipow et al. with the claimed caustic pH of 12.5 or greater as claimed because Osipow et al. teach a bleach free composition useable in both alkaline and acid media (col.4ln.20) comprising a potassium hydroxide pH adjuster, LDAO surfactant, and solvent in similar proportions used as a cleaning agent in general and Ryther (US 2017/0306266 A1) teach a bleach free caustic cleaning composition comprising a potassium hydroxide pH adjuster and amine oxide surfactant and solvent having a higher alkaline pH of 12 or greater beneficially removes polymerized soils and thus cleans more effectively at the claimed pH range.
One of ordinary skill reading Osipow et al. is motivated to optimize the composition of Osipow et al. to the claimed pH to 12 or greater with the same ingredients and in the same proportions as claimed and taught by Osipow et al exemplifying the same ingredients in the same proportions and one of ordinary skill understands the claimed lauryl dimethyl amine oxide LDAO as taught by Osipow et al. is stable over a wide range of pH in both alkaline media and acidic media. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the references because all are in the analogous art of bleach free cleaning with a potassium hydroxide and an amine oxide surfactant.
Limitation of claim 26 to wherein housing the composition in a bottle is met by Osipow et al. teaching the composition is stored in a collapsible tube. See claim 24, in col.12. Examiner notes that the container’s ESCR value of greater than 600 hours is not disclosed by Osipow et al. however, the patentability of any composition is not dependent to the container it is held in. It is the Examiner’s position that the BRI of claim 26 is met by the storage container of Osipow et al.
Limitation of claim 38 to wherein the composition further comprises 0.5-45 wt% cationic surfactant is taught in col.4,18-65 teaching surface active agents are nitrogen-containing surface active agents that are nonionic in alkaline media and cationic in acid media, in an amount of 1-10% selected from the group consisting of: (a) Tertiary amine oxides with one long hydrocarbon chain of 12 to 22 carbon atoms. Examples of suit able materials include lauryl dimethyl amine oxide, myristyl dimethyl amine oxide, cetyl dimethyl amine oxide, stearyl dimethyl amine oxide, lauryl morpholine amine oxide, bis (2-hydroxyethyl) lauryl amine oxide, and bis (2-hydroxyethyl) stearyl amine oxide; and, (b) lauroyl and myristoyl alkanolamides, such as lauroyl diethanolamide, myristoyl diethanolamide, lauroyl monoethanolamide, and lauroyl diisopropanolamide.
Claims 1, 26, 36-38 are rejected 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).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 36-37, Osipow et al. example 1, in col.7 illustrate a shaving cream composition comprising 6.2 wt % potassium hydroxide with 22.5% lauryl dimethylamine oxide See example 1 in col.7, lines 30-45.
Claims 1 and 36-37 limitations to a solvent is met by the example 1 teaching 360 parts by weight water.
Limitation of claims 1 and 36-37 to a non-bleach cleaning composition is met by the reference not using any bleach.
Claims 1 and 36-37 limitations to wherein the cleaning composition solubilizes mycosporine or mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) secreted by an organism is met by Osipow et al. disclosing the same ingredients (potassium hydroxide and LDAO and solvent) in the same proportions which one of ordinary skill will reasonably expect to arrive at the same solubilizations as claimed. Furthermore, the concept of solubilizing mycosporine or mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) secreted by an organism is also met by the lauryl dimethylamine oxide surfactant of Osipow et al. being a plant metabolite and a detergent. See the https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ teaching the claimed LDAO has a role as a plant metabolite and a detergent. See the ScienceEditorsChoice pdf explaining the role of surfactants in relation to mycosporine as claimed is neither novel nor patentable. Specifically, the box on the top left, states “a sticky green froth exuded from the algae that contained surfactant mycosporine like amino acids, which acted like a detergent”, 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 LDAO surfactant based detergent as disclosed by Osipow et al.
With respect to the consisting of language in claim 36, Osipow et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a composition comprising potassium hydroxide and lauryl dimethylamine oxide with solvents and further including palmitic acid and n-pentane which is excluded by the consisting of language in claim 36. However, it is Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill is guided by the teaching of Osipow et al. col.7,ln.25 to the material limitation of consisting of only potassium hydroxide and LDAO as required in claim 36 if they did not want the composition to lather and thus the combination of the 2 ingredients potassium hydroxide and LDAO is known in the art and does not provide a contribution over the art of record.
Osipow et al. is silent as to the cleaning composition having a pH of 12.5 or greater as required in claims 1 and 36-37.
In the analogous art of detergents comprising potassium hydroxide and LDAO, Man et al. teach a cleaning composition comprising from 0.5 to 15 weight % of potassium hydroxide pH adjuster [0057-0058] with
3 % to 15 weight % of a surfactant [0018], specifically the claimed LDAO is used in an amount of 5% in [0129] formulation DVE-4, which amount reads upon the claimed 3-15 wt of LDAO surfactant and a glycol ether solvent [0078] wherein the cleaning composition has a pH of 12-14. [0058]
Man teaches the composition may have 0.1% bleach [0085] and further guide bleach as optional use because each of the exemplary formulations in tables A-F do not have any bleach. Therefore, the language of may comprise 0.1% bleach taught by Man et al. [0085] when read in light of the exemplary formulations guides one of ordinary skill to the bleach being optional and the composition of Man et al. being effective bleach free as exemplified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osipow et al. with the claimed caustic pH of 12.5 or greater as claimed because Osipow et al. teach a bleach free composition useable in both alkaline and acid media (col.4ln.20) comprising a potassium hydroxide pH adjuster, LDAO surfactant, and solvent in similar proportions in general and Man et al. teach a bleach free caustic cleaning composition comprising a potassium hydroxide pH adjuster and amine oxide surfactant and solvent has a higher alkaline pH of 12-14 for greater cleaning more effectively at the claimed pH range.
One of ordinary skill reading Osipow et al. is motivated to optimize the composition of Osipow et al. to the claimed pH to 12.5 or greater with the same ingredients and in the same proportions as claimed and taught by Osipow et al exemplifying the same ingredients in the same proportions and one of ordinary skill understands the claimed lauryl dimethyl amine oxide LDAO as taught by Osipow et al. is stable over a wide range of pH in both alkaline media and acidic media. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the references because all are in the analogous art of bleach free cleaning with a potassium hydroxide and an amine oxide surfactant.
Limitation of claim 26 to wherein housing the composition in a bottle is met by Osipow et al. teaching the composition is stored in a collapsible tube. See claim 24, in col.12. Examiner notes that the container’s ESCR value of greater than 600 hours is not disclosed by Osipow et al. however, the patentability of any composition is not dependent to the container it is held in. It is the Examiner’s position that the BRI of claim 26 is met by the storage container of Osipow et al.
Limitation of claim 38 to wherein the composition further comprises 0.5-45 wt% cationic surfactant is taught in col.4,18-65 teaching surface active agents are nitrogen-containing surface active agents that are nonionic in alkaline media and cationic in acid media, in an amount of 1-10% selected from the group consisting of: (a) Tertiary amine oxides with one long hydrocarbon chain of 12 to 22 carbon atoms. Examples of suit able materials include lauryl dimethyl amine oxide, myristyl dimethyl amine oxide, cetyl dimethyl amine oxide, stearyl dimethyl amine oxide, lauryl morpholine amine oxide, bis (2-hydroxyethyl) lauryl amine oxide, and bis (2-hydroxyethyl) stearyl amine oxide; and, (b) lauroyl and myristoyl alkanolamides, such as lauroyl diethanolamide, myristoyl diethanolamide, lauroyl monoethanolamide, and lauroyl diisopropanolamide.
Claims 1, 11-15,18, 26 and 37-38 are rejected 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.
With respect to the independent claims 1 and 37, Saito et al. teach a cleaning composition (see page 7, under section 2. Use and storage).Saito teach limitation to 0.5-20 wt %, caustic pH adjuster is taught by Saito teaching on page 7, middle of the page, examples of pH adjusters other than organic acids include sodium hydroxide, phosphoric acid, carbonic acid, potassium salts, sodium salts or ammonium salts thereof. It is the Examiner’s position that since the other components encompass additives, surfactants, thickeners, pH adjusters as disclosed on pg.7, one of ordinary skill would reasonably read that the content thereof is not particularly limited, but for example, 1 to 80% by weight, preferably 10 to 80% by weight, more preferably 20 to 80% by weight which ranges encompass the claimed 0.5-20 wt %, caustic pH adjuster.
Limitation to 0.5 - 45 wt% surfactant is taught on page 7, under other components, specifically teaching 20 to 80% by weight of a surfactant include polyoxyethylene hydrogenated castor oil, polyoxyethylene hydrogenated castor oil ether, polyoxyethylene alkyl ether, polyoxyethylene fatty acid ester, polyoxyethylene glyceryl ether fatty acid ester, alkyl alkanolamide, alkyl polyglucoside, sorbitan Nonionic surfactants such as fatty acid esters, glycerin fatty acid esters, polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid esters, polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene glycol; alkyl sulfates, polyoxyethylene alkyl ether sulfates, sulfosuccinates, N-acyl amino acids Anionic surfactants such as salts, carboxylates, sulfonic acids, phosphate esters; alkylamide betaines, alkyldimethylamine oxides. See page 7 of the Google Patents Translation. See also the paragraph linking pages 2-3 teaching the specific claim 35 to lauryl dimethyl amine oxide surfactant.
Limitation to a solvent is taught a solvent (water, glycol ether) is taught on page 7, about 1/3 of the ways down, teaching specific examples of the solubilizer include 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol monoethyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether, and propylene glycol propyl ether. And alkyl ether compounds; alcohols such as methanol, ethanol, propanol and butanol; and glycols such as ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.
Thus, Saito et al. guide one of ordinary skill to an alkaline, bleach-free composition comprising the claimed LDAO surfactant, and glycol ether solvent in similar proportions used as a cleaning detergent having a higher pH in general.
However, Saito et al. do not specifically teach the claimed potassium hydroxide pH adjuster as required by claims 1 and 37. And Saito is silent as to the pH of their composition and do not specifically disclose their composition has a pH of 12.5 or greater as is required claim 1 and 37. Examiner notes that the lauryl dimethylamine oxide (LDAO) surfactant meeting the claims 1 and 37 and specifically disclosed in Saito paragraph linking pages 2-3, is stable over a wide range of pH 5-12. See the MSDS at the link: https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/
The concept of solubilizing mycosporine or mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) secreted by an organism is also met by the lauryl dimethylamine oxide surfactant of Saito being a plant metabolite and a detergent. See the https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ teaching the claimed LDAO has a role as a plant metabolite and a detergent. See the ScienceEditorsChoice pdf explaining the role of surfactants in relation to mycosporine as claimed is neither novel nor patentable. Specifically, the box on the top left, states “a sticky green froth exuded from the algae that contained surfactant mycosporine like amino acids, which acted like a detergent”, 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 LDAO surfactant based detergent as disclosed by Saito.
In the analogous bleach free detergent composition art, Ryther et al. (US 2017/0306266 A1) teach a bleach free composition having greater than 12 pH with the claimed scope of categories of ingredients removes polymerized soils effectively. Specifically, Ryther (US 2017/0306266 A1) Tables 7, 8 and 23 illustrate bleach-free, caustic cleaning composition comprising dimethyl alkyl amine oxide (see claim 58), potassium hydroxide (see [0018], claim 56) effectively removes polymerized soils at pH 12 or greater as claimed. See page 3, [0016]. Ryther teach the combination of high alkalinity to open up or wet the soils and agents normally effective for chelating / sequestering and inhibiting redeposition of metal cations appear to support the break down of these polymerized zero trans fat soils. [See 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Saito et al. with the claimed caustic pH of 12 or greater as claimed because Saito (JP2014181261A) teach a bleach free composition comprising a pH adjuster, LDAO surfactant, and solvent in similar proportions used as a cleaning agent in general and Ryther (US 2017/0306266 A1) teach a bleach free caustic cleaning composition comprising a potassium hydroxide pH adjuster and amine oxide surfactant and solvent having a higher alkaline pH of 12 or greater beneficially removes polymerized soils and thus cleans more effectively at the claimed pH range.
One of ordinary skill reading Saito et al. is motivated to optimize the composition of Saito et al. to the claimed pH to 12.5 or greater with the same ingredients and in the same proportions as claimed and taught by Saito et al. teach cleaning with the same ingredients in the same proportions and one of ordinary skill understands the claimed lauryl dimethyl amine oxide LDAO as taught by Saito et al. is stable over a wide range of pH 5-12 and having the higher caustic pH would result in more effective cleaning and removal of polymerized soils. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the references because all are in the analogous art of bleach free cleaning with a potassium hydroxide and an amine oxide surfactant.
On page 5 of the translation, Saito teach cationic surfactant of claims 11-15 and 38. Saito teaches a quaternary ammonium salt which can be used as an antimicrobial agent including those specifically encompassing the claim 15 ie [3 (trimethoxysilyl)] having trialkoxysilylalkyl group (4 to 10 carbon atoms) such as propyl (dimethyl) octadecyl ammonium salt or 2 alkyl) long chain (8 to 8 carbon atoms) 18 alkyl) ammonium salts; amine nitrates; benzyltrimethylammonium salts; benzalkonium salts; benzethonium salts on page 5, 1st paragraph and 3rd paragraph from the bottom of page 5 of the attached translation.
Limitation of claim 26 to wherein housing the composition in a bottle is met by Saito teaching the composition is stored in a container. See pages 7-8 of the translation. Examiner notes that the container’s ESCR value of greater than 600 hours is not disclosed by Saito, however, the patentability of any composition is not dependent to the container it is held in. It is the Examiner’s position that the BRI of claim 26 is met by the storage container of Saito.
Claims 1, 11-12, 26, 37-38 are rejected 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.
With respect to the independent claims 1 and 37, Man et al. teach a cleaning composition comprising:
from 0.5 to 15 weight % of potassium hydroxide pH adjuster [0057-0058].
3 % to 15 weight % of a surfactant [0018], specifically the claimed LDAO is used in an amount of 5% in [0129] formulation DVE-4, which amount reads upon the claimed 3-15 wt of LDAO surfactant.
and a glycol ether solvent [0078],
Man et al. teach the cleaning composition has a pH of 12-14. [0058]
Man teaches the composition may have 0.1% bleach [0085] and further guide bleach as optional use by each of the formulations in tables A-F not having any bleach. Therefore, the language of may comprise 0.1% bleach taught by Man is optional and one of ordinary skill understands that the composition of Man et al. can be effective bleach free.
The concept of solubilizing mycosporine or mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) secreted by an organism is also met by the lauryl dimethylamine oxide surfactant of Man et al. being a plant metabolite in a detergent. See the https://www.atamanchemicals.com/lauryldimethylamine-oxide_u25165/ teaching the claimed LDAO has a role as a plant metabolite and a detergent. See the ScienceEditorsChoice pdf explaining the role of surfactants in relation to mycosporine as claimed is neither novel nor patentable. Specifically, the box on the top left, states “a sticky green froth exuded from the algae that contained surfactant mycosporine like amino acids, which acted like a detergent”, 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 LDAO surfactant based detergent as disclosed by Man et al.
Man et al. do not exemplify the cleaning composition of 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 cleaning composition because Man et al. guide one of ordinary skill to an alkaline, bleach-free composition comprising the claimed potassium hydroxide pH adjuster, LDAO surfactant, and glycol ether solvent in similar proportions having a higher alkaline pH of 12 or greater used as a cleaning detergent in general.
Man et al. guide one of ordinary skill to greater than 12.5 pH by suggesting approximately 14 on page 5, [0058].
Regarding claims 11 and 38, Man et al. guide one of ordinary skill to include cationic surfactants with their LDAO by teaching in [0061] that their pseudo linkers are cationic surfactants in addition to the viscoelastic surfactants.
Regarding claim 12, Man et al. teaching quaternary ammonium cationic compounds in [0039].
Limitation of claim 26 to wherein housing the composition in a bottle is met by Man et al. teaching the composition is stored in any container. See [0097]. Examiner notes that the container’s ESCR value of greater than 600 hours is not disclosed by Man et al, however, the patentability of any composition is not dependent to the container it is held in. It is the Examiner’s position that the BRI of claim 26 is met by the storage container of Man.
Claims 13-15, 18 are rejected 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 as applied to claims 1, 11-12, 26 and 37-38 above, and further in view of Kilkenny et al. (US 7,799,751 B2).
Man et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Man et al. do not teach the limitations of claims 13-15 and 18.
In the analogous art of cleaning with an LDAO surfactant, Kilkenny teach cleaning compositions comprising the same LDAO surfactant of Man 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Man et al. with the surfactants of claims 13-15 and 18 as disclosed by Kilkenny to achieve improved cleaning without leaving a residue. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Man et al. with that of Kilkenney et al. since both are in the analogous art of LDAO based cleaning compositions in general.
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