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 April 21st, 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 Claims 11, 13, and 21-24 have been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Emiru (US 20210095228 A1) and Wattebled (WO 2008155160 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Emiru (US 20210095228 A1), Wattebled (WO 2008155160 A1), and Bauer (WO 2017189703 A1) is maintained.
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 filed April 21st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Wattebled fails to disclose an alkaline agent and further fails to disclose a pH of at least 12. While Wattebled states that typical household detergents have a pH of “between 8 and 8.4”, this is merely typical. Further, Applicant argues that the composition of Wattebled is suitable for hand washing and hand cleaning. Wattebled further discloses liquid detergents for automatic washing machines, not only hand washing and hand cleaning. Emiru discloses a composition for use in cleaning surfaces in direct contact with food processing. These are analogous arts. Therefore, the cleaning compositions may be used in similar conditions.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine Wattebled and Emiru. Wattebled is relied upon for potassium nitrate. As stated above, 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.
Applicant further argues that the present invention is directed to "aqueous degreasing compositions for use in degreasing and/or cleansing various soiled hard surfaces" in industrial environments, including slaughterhouses, hospitals, kitchens, fruit and vegetable industries, and food and beverage industries, and for use on equipment, tools, pipes, vessels, tanks, reservoirs, and the like. Applicant further argues that the claimed compositions are strongly alkaline and possess very strong oxidizing power, and that such properties are required for degreasing and cleansing highly soiled hard surfaces found in industrial environments. Applicant further argues that technical context is fundamentally different from Wattebled's household/laundry detergent context. The present invention is not directed to ordinary hand-wash or household detergent applications; it is directed to industrial hard-surface degreasing under strongly alkaline conditions.
Wattebled discloses liquid detergents for automatic washing machines, not only hand washing and hand cleaning. An automatic dishwashing machine may be used in food and beverage industries. Further, Emiru is cited as a primary reference. As stated above, Emiru discloses a cleaning and degreasing composition. It is not Wattebled that is being modified. It is Emiru. Further, Emiru discloses the claimed pH range.
Applicant further argues Emiru and Wattebled do not teach forming a concentrated liquid composition capable of forming a gel. While Emiru teaches a ready-to-use composition, this is a distinction in use. The composition itself, when combined with Wattebled, is identical to the disclosed composition. Further, the claims do not specify a concentration of surfactant, meaning it is impossible to determine what is meant by a “concentrated” composition. Claim 7 discloses about 5wt% to about 20wt% surfactant. As stated above, Emiru discloses surfactants as any surfactant which is alkaline compatible at 0.1-20wt% (see [0061]). 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.
Applicant further argues that Emiru and Wattebled teach away from the disclosed viscosity. Conversion between centistroke and centipoise requires knowledge of a substance’s density. Without this, it is impossible to determine if the viscosity of the prior art directly correlates to the viscosity disclosed in the instant claims. However, as stated above, 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. It would, therefore, stand to reason that the composition of Emiru and Wattebled, when diluted, would produce a gel having the claimed viscosity.
Applicant further argues that Wattebled teaches away from increasing viscosity. Wattebled discloses a viscosity of less than 10,000 mPas (see [0007]). Further, Emiru discloses compositions which have a viscosity of between 50cP and 1098cP. 1 mPas is equivalent to 1cP. Therefore, the viscosity of the prior art encompasses an overlapping range. Further, Wattebled discloses a small amount of electrolyte is sufficient to adjust the viscosity in liquid, washing or cleaning agents to acceptable levels (see [0007]). “Acceptable levels” may mean an increase or decrease in viscosity. Further, this is in regard to the liquid composition. The viscosity of the gel is determined after dilution. As stated above, 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, including the viscosity of the gel, as the prior art composition contains the same amounts of each component as recited by the instant claims.
Applicant further argues Wattebled teaches many inoperable embodiments. The inoperable nature of the embodiments is speculation by the Applicant. Selection of potassium nitrate and the determination of unsuitable electrolytes would fall under routine experimentation.
Applicant further argues that the person of ordinary skill in the art would require undue experimentation with a very low expectation of success. Aside from potassium nitrate, Emiru discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wattebled is relied upon for potassium nitrate and, as stated above, 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. One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success with the addition of one component.
Applicant further argues that Bauer fails to cure the deficiencies of Emiru and Wattebled. Applicant further argues that Bauer fails to disclose an aqueous chlorine-free degreasing composition, comprising: (i) 0.1% w/w to about 10% potassium nitrate; (ii) about 1% w/w to about 30% w/w of at least one alkaline agent; and (iii) at least one surfactant as claimed. Bauer does not teach or suggest either to prepare a concentrated liquid composition forming a gel when diluted. Applicant further argues there would be no disclosure or motivation provided by Bauer or any reason why a person of ordinary skill would modify Bauer to manufacture the composition as is instantly claimed, and no motivation or reason to modify Bauer used in combination with Emiru and/or Wattebled to prepare an aqueous concentrated liquid composition forming a gel when diluted.
As stated above, 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. Emiru, Wattebled, and Bauer all disclose compositions which may be used in dishwashers. Therefore, they all disclose analogous art to one another.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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