Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/025,937

HYDROPHILIZING AGENT COMPOSITION FOR HARD SURFACES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 13, 2023
Examiner
AHVAZI, BIJAN
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kao Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
754 granted / 1191 resolved
-1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+46.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1273
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1191 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 2. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/042569, filed on 11/19/2021, which is entitled to and claims the benefit of priority of JP Patent App. No. 2020-203875, filed 12/09/2020. The preliminary amendment filed on 03/13/2023 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. 3. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 are under examination on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statements submitted on 03/13/2023, 06/30/2023, 10/16, 2024, 10/16/2024, and 10/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements. Priority 5. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 03/13/2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 7. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terazaki et al. (US Pub. No.2014/0079658 A1, hereinafter “’658”). Regarding claim 1: ‘658 discloses a hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces such as an aqueous hair cleansing agent (Page 1, [0001]), the hydrophilizing agent composition comprising: an internal olefin sulfonate with 18 carbons as component (A) such as sodium C18 internal olefin sulfonate, a polymer having a cationic group as component (B) such as Jaguar C-14S (e.g. Guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) and POIZ M-80 (polyquaternium-10), and water in Example 2 (Page 10 Table 1, Examples 2-4). Regarding claims 2-3: ‘658 discloses the hydrophilizing agent composition (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the component (B) is one or more selected from the group consisting of a polysaccharide derivative having a cationic group such as Jaguar C-14S (e.g. Guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) and POIZ M-80 (polyquaternium-10 in Example 2 (Page 10 Table 1, Examples 2-4). Regarding claim 4: ‘658 discloses the hydrophilizing agent composition (Page 1, [0001]), wherein a mass ratio the component (A) to the component (B), (A)/(B), is 6.0/0.4=15. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. 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. 9. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0089972 A1, hereinafter “’’972”) in view of Horie et al. (WO 2019/146374 A1, hereinafter “’374”). Regarding claims 1-3: ‘972 teaches a hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces (Page 1, [0001]), the hydrophilizing agent composition comprising: an internal olefin sulfonate with 18 carbons as component (A) (Page 2, [0030]; Page 16, Claim 5), a di-long chain hydrocarbon cationic surfactant (B) (Page 3, [0041]; Page 16, Claim 8), and water (Page 1, [0011]). ‘972 does not expressly teach a polymer having a cationic group as component (B), wherein the component (B) is a polysaccharide derivative having a cationic group. However, ‘374 teaches a hard surface treatment agent comprising a cationized polysaccharide (A) with benefit of providing to impart antifouling properties to a hard surface. The cationization of the polysaccharide makes it easy to adhere to a hard surface of an inorganic substance such as ceramic, porcelain, or glass, and it is considered that the durability of the coating film formed on the hard surface can be improved. In addition, since a hydrophilic coating film is formed by containing a polysaccharide, it is considered that antifouling properties against oil stains can be exhibited, and antifouling durability is excellent (Page 4/7, [0008]). In an analogous art of the hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the di-long chain hydrocarbon cationic surfactant by ‘972, so as to include a polymer having a cationic group as component (B), wherein the component (B) is a polysaccharide derivative having a cationic group as taught by ‘374, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to impart antifouling properties to a hard surface. The cationization of the polysaccharide makes it easy to adhere to a hard surface of an inorganic substance such as ceramic, porcelain, or glass, and it is considered that the durability of the coating film formed on the hard surface can be improved. In addition, since a hydrophilic coating film is formed by containing a polysaccharide, it is considered that antifouling properties against oil stains can be exhibited, and antifouling durability is excellent as suggested by ‘374 (Page 4/7, [0008]). Regarding claim 4: ‘972 teaches the hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces (Page 1, [0001]), wherein a mass ratio the component (A) to the component (B), (A)/(B), is 1 or more and 50 or less (Page 1, [0011]; Page 15, [0269, Examples, Table 1). Regarding claim 5: ‘972 teaches the hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces (Page 1, [0001]), wherein a proportion of the component (A) in all surfactants is 40 mass% or more and 100 mass% or less (Page 1, [0011]; Page 15, [0269, Examples, Table 1). Regarding claim 6: ‘972 teaches the hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces (Page 1, [0001]), wherein a target hard surface is a hard surface made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a plastic material, a ceramic material, a metal, a wood, glass, rubber, and a carbon material (Page 5, [0068]). Regarding claim 7: ‘972 teaches the hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces (Page 1, [0001]), wherein a target hard surface is a hard surface made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a polyester, a polyethylene, a polypropylene, a ceramic material, and glass (Page 5, [0068]). Regarding claim 17: ‘972 teaches the hydrophilizing agent composition for hard surfaces (Page 1, [0001]), wherein a mass ratio of the component (A) to the component (B), (A)/(B), is 5 or more and 25 or less (Page 1, [0011]; Page 15, [0269, Examples, Table 1). Regarding claim 8: ‘972 teaches a method for hydrophilizing a hard surface (Page 1, [0001]), the method comprising: bringing a treatment liquid into contact with the hard surface, wherein the treatment liquid contains an internal olefin sulfonate with 18 carbons as component (A) (Page 2, [0030]; Page 16, Claim 5), a di-long chain hydrocarbon cationic surfactant (B) (Page 3, [0041]; Page 16, Claim 8), and water (Page 1, [0011]). ‘972 does not expressly teach a polymer having a cationic group as component (B), wherein the component (B) is a polysaccharide derivative having a cationic group. However, ‘374 teaches a hard surface treatment agent comprising a cationized polysaccharide (A) with benefit of providing to impart antifouling properties to a hard surface. The cationization of the polysaccharide makes it easy to adhere to a hard surface of an inorganic substance such as ceramic, porcelain, or glass, and it is considered that the durability of the coating film formed on the hard surface can be improved. In addition, since a hydrophilic coating film is formed by containing a polysaccharide, it is considered that antifouling properties against oil stains can be exhibited, and antifouling durability is excellent (Page 4/7, [0008]). In an analogous art of the method for hydrophilizing a hard surface, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the di-long chain hydrocarbon cationic surfactant by ‘972, so as to include a polymer having a cationic group as component (B), wherein the component (B) is a polysaccharide derivative having a cationic group as taught by ‘374, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to impart antifouling properties to a hard surface. The cationization of the polysaccharide makes it easy to adhere to a hard surface of an inorganic substance such as ceramic, porcelain, or glass, and it is considered that the durability of the coating film formed on the hard surface can be improved. In addition, since a hydrophilic coating film is formed by containing a polysaccharide, it is considered that antifouling properties against oil stains can be exhibited, and antifouling durability is excellent as suggested by ‘374 (Page 4/7, [0008]). Regarding claim 9: ‘972 teaches the method for hydrophilizing a hard surface (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the water has a hardness of 4°dH or more and 100°dH or less (Page 5, [0077). Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. Regarding claim 10: ‘972 teaches the method for hydrophilizing a hard surface (Page 1, [0001]), further comprising: after bringing the treatment liquid into contact with the hard surface, rinsing the hard surface with water (Page 7, [0098]). Regarding claim 11: ‘972 teaches the method for hydrophilizing a hard surface (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the treatment liquid is obtained by mixing a hydrophilizing agent composition containing the component (A) and the component (B) with water (Page 6, [0089]). Regarding claim 12: ‘972 teaches the method for hydrophilizing a hard surface (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the hard surface is a hard surface made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a plastic material, a ceramic material, a metal, a wood, glass, rubber, and a carbon material (Page 5, [0068]). Regarding claim 13: ‘972 teaches the method for hydrophilizing a hard surface (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the hard surface is a hard surface made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a polyester, a polyethylene, a polypropylene, a ceramic material, and glass (Page 5, [0068]). Regarding claim 18: ‘972 teaches a method for hydrophilizing a hard surface (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the water has a hardness of 4°dH or more and 1000°dH or less (Page 5, [0077). Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. Regarding claim 14: ‘972 teaches a method for maintaining hydrophilicity of a hard surface (Page 5, [0069]; Page 7, [0098]), the method comprising: bringing a treatment liquid into contact with the hard surface, wherein the treatment liquid contains an internal olefin sulfonate with 18 carbons as component (A) (Page 2, [0030]; Page 16, Claim 5), a di-long chain hydrocarbon cationic surfactant (B) (Page 3, [0041]; Page 16, Claim 8), and water (Page 1, [0011]). ‘972 does not expressly teach a polymer having a cationic group as component (B), wherein the component (B) is a polysaccharide derivative having a cationic group. However, ‘374 teaches a hard surface treatment agent comprising a cationized polysaccharide (A) with benefit of providing to impart antifouling properties to a hard surface. The cationization of the polysaccharide makes it easy to adhere to a hard surface of an inorganic substance such as ceramic, porcelain, or glass, and it is considered that the durability of the coating film formed on the hard surface can be improved. In addition, since a hydrophilic coating film is formed by containing a polysaccharide, it is considered that antifouling properties against oil stains can be exhibited, and antifouling durability is excellent (Page 4/7, [0008]). In an analogous art of the method for hydrophilizing a hard surface, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the di-long chain hydrocarbon cationic surfactant by ‘972, so as to include a polymer having a cationic group as component (B), wherein the component (B) is a polysaccharide derivative having a cationic group as taught by ‘374, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to impart antifouling properties to a hard surface. The cationization of the polysaccharide makes it easy to adhere to a hard surface of an inorganic substance such as ceramic, porcelain, or glass, and it is considered that the durability of the coating film formed on the hard surface can be improved. In addition, since a hydrophilic coating film is formed by containing a polysaccharide, it is considered that antifouling properties against oil stains can be exhibited, and antifouling durability is excellent as suggested by ‘374 (Page 4/7, [0008]). Regarding claim 15: ‘972 teaches the method for maintaining hydrophilicity of a hard surface (Page 5, [0069]; Page 7, [0098]), wherein the hard surface is a hard surface made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a plastic material, a ceramic material, a metal, a wood, glass, rubber, and a carbon material (Page 5, [0068]). Regarding claim 16: ‘972 teaches the method for maintaining hydrophilicity of a hard surface (Page 5, [0069]; Page 7, [0098]), wherein the hard surface is a hard surface made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a polyester, a polyethylene, a polypropylene, a ceramic material, and glass (Page 5, [0068]). Examiner Information 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Bijan Ahvazi/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763 10/24/2025 bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 13, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595408
PHOTOCHROMIC COMPOUND, NAPHTHOL DERIVATIVE, CURABLE COMPOSITION, OPTICAL ARTICLE, LENS, AND EYEGLASSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577144
GLASS MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577455
PHOTOCHROMIC COMPOUND, PHOTOCHROMIC COMPOSITION, PHOTOCHROMIC ARTICLE AND SPECTACLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570894
PHOTOCHROMIC COMPOUND AND CURABLE COMPOSITION CONTAINING THE PHOTOCHROMIC COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571950
WAVELENGTH SELECTIVE ABSORPTION FILTER, POLARIZING PLATE, ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY DEVICE, AND LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+46.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1191 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month