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 February 3rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 12, 14-20, and 25-26 are currently pending in the application. Claims 11, 13, and 21-24 have been withdrawn.
All previously mailed rejections are withdrawn due to amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10, 12, 14, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emiru (US 20210095228 A1), and in further view of Wattebled (WO 2008155160 A1).
With regard to claims 1-4, Emiru discloses a cleaning and degreasing composition (see Abstract). Emiru further discloses 0.1-50wt% of sodium hydroxide (see [0056]-[0057]) and a pH of 7-14 (see [0056]). Emiru further discloses surfactants as any surfactant which is alkaline compatible at 0.1-20wt% (see [0061]).
However, Emiru fails to disclose 0.1-10wt% of potassium nitrate.
Wattebled discloses a liquid detergent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Wattebled further discloses the composition may comprise an electrolyte to decrease the viscosity (see [0041]). Wattebled further discloses 0.01-5wt% of an electrolyte and potassium nitrate as a suitable electrolyte (see [0022]-[0024]). Wattebled further teaches that potassium nitrate is inexpensive and dissolves well in water (see [0023]). Wattebled further discloses the composition as having a viscosity which permits the use thereof for washing by hand (see Abstract). Wattebled further teaches that foam boosters often result in a massive increase in viscosity (see [0005]). Wattebled further discloses a small amount of electrolyte based on the total content of anionic surfactants as sufficient to adjust the viscosity of the liquid washing or cleaning agents to acceptable levels (see [0007]). Wattebled further teaches “acceptable values of viscosity” as less than 10,000 mPas (see [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the potassium nitrate of Wattebled in the composition of Emiru for the purpose of lowering the viscosity of the composition, as disclosed by Wattebled.
While Emiru and Wattebled fail to disclose specifically that the composition is effective in removing fats and proteins from hard surfaces, the prior art teaches compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Therefore, the disclosed composition would be effective in removing fats and proteins from hard surfaces.
Further, while Emiru and Wattebled fail to disclose a composition that takes the form of a gel when diluted with water at a ready-to-use concentration of about 2% w/w to about 7% w/w, the disclosed product of the prior art would be capable of forming such a gel as the prior art composition contains the same amounts of each component as recited by the instant claims.
With regard to claim 5 and claims 8-10, Emiru discloses polyethylene glycol (see [0091]) at 0.001-5wt% (see [0093]).
With regard to claim 6, Emiru discloses sodium xylene sulfonate (see [0092]).
With regard to claim 7, Emiru discloses surfactants as any surfactant which is alkaline compatible at 0.1-20wt% (see [0061]).
With regard to claim 12, Emiru discloses compositions which have a viscosity of between 50cP and 1098cP (see Table 3B).
With regard to claim 14, Emiru fails to disclose sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, sodium dichloroisocyanurate, and trichloroisocyanuric acid.
With regard to claim 25 and claim 26, Emiru discloses the treatment composition may be utilized on piping and HVAC surfaces (see [0096]).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emiru (US 20210095228 A1) and Wattebled (WO 2008155160 A1), and further in view of Bauer (WO 2017189703 A1).
With regard to claims 15-17, Emiru discloses a cleaning and degreasing composition (see Abstract). Emiru further discloses 0.1-50wt% of sodium hydroxide (see [0056]-[0057]) and a pH of 7-14 (see [0056]). Emiru further discloses surfactants as any surfactant which is alkaline compatible at 0.1-20wt% (see [0061]). Emiru further discloses water at 0.1-70wt% (see [0059]). Emiru further discloses dispersants and sequestrants at 0-50wt% (see [0083]-[0085]).
However, Emiru fails to disclose 0.1-10wt% of potassium nitrate.
Wattebled discloses a liquid detergent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Wattebled further discloses the composition may comprise an electrolyte to decrease the viscosity (see [0041]). Wattebled further discloses 0.01-5wt% of an electrolyte and potassium nitrate as a suitable electrolyte (see [0022]-[0024]). Wattebled further teaches that potassium nitrate is inexpensive and dissolves well in water (see [0023]). Wattebled further discloses the composition as having a viscosity which permits the use thereof for washing by hand (see Abstract). Wattebled further teaches that foam boosters often result in a massive increase in viscosity (see [0005]). Wattebled further discloses a small amount of electrolyte based on the total content of anionic surfactants as sufficient to adjust the viscosity of the liquid washing or cleaning agents to acceptable levels (see [0007]). Wattebled further teaches “acceptable values of viscosity” as less than 10,000 mPas (see [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the potassium nitrate of Wattebled in the composition of Emiru for the purpose of lowering the viscosity of the composition, as disclosed by Wattebled.
Further, Emiru and Wattebled fail to disclose demineralized water.
Bauer discloses a detergent composition (see [0001]). Bauer further discloses the composition comprising an anionic surfactant (see [0075]) at 0.1-25wt% (see [0080]), potassium hydroxide (see [0086]), a pH of 5-13 (see [0094]), and water, with demineralized water listed as suitable (see [0076]). Solvents, such as demineralized water, are further disclosed as conventional compounds and additives known in the art (see [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the demineralized water of Bauer in the composition of Emiru and Wattebled as demineralized water is a known solvent in the art, as disclosed by Bauer.
While Emiru, Wattebled, and Bauer fail to disclose specifically that the composition is effective in removing fats and proteins from hard surfaces, Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “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)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, while Emiru, Wattebled, and Bauer fail to disclose a composition that takes the form of a gel when diluted with water at a ready-to-use concentration of about 2% w/w to about 7% w/w, the disclosed product of the prior art would be capable of forming such a gel as the prior art composition contains the same amounts of each component as recited by the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 and 25-26 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.
Applicant argues that Kang is not analogous art and does not teach a chlorine-free degreasing composition. As Kang is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments with regard to Kang are moot.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761