DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/30/2023, 7/11/2023, 12/9/2024 and 1/13/2025 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-7, 11-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2018/0201885 A1) to Bittner et al. (hereinafter Bittner) in view of the teaching of (US 2007/0214999 A1) to Meyer et al. (hereinafter Meyer).
Bittner is directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates for providing surface printing. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0137] that the sulfonate has an alkyl group of a propylheptyl. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0589] that in Table 1, the claimed sulfonate by Applicant is disclosed:
PNG
media_image1.png
173
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bittner discloses at paragraph [0185] that the water concentration is preferably above 50%, which reads on Applicants range of 10% to 60% for D. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0228] that one or more organic solvents are present. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0290] that the solvents are at 5%, which reads on Applicants 5% or more for B. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0290] that the sulfonate surfactant has a most preferred above 50%, which reads on Applicants range of 5% to 71%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Bittner discloses Applicants ranges for A, B and D. Bittner discloses each and every element of the composition, but is silent regarding the presence of an inorganic metal compound C.
Meyer is directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates. Bittner and Meyer are both directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0004] that salts of sulfonated dicarboxylic acids have been known for a long time as a surfactant used for cleaning. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0006] that decarboxylated salts from 2-propylheptanol are disclosed, which reads on Applicants compound of formula 1. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0029] that the compound is present in a combination of water and an organic alcohol solvent. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0039] that a metal of sodium sulfate is present at 0.32% that reads on Applicants D having a concertation above zero. Meyers discloses the identical composition of formula 1 and therefore it would be obvious to have inorganic compound C present in the sulfonate composition above zero, which is silent in the disclosure of Bittner, where both are used for cleaning of substrates with the same composition. Therefore one skilled in the art would find it obvious to have the presence of compound C above a concentration of zero.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Bittner in view of the teachings of Meyer to have a sulfonate composition having the composition ranges that form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 3-7, 11-18 and 20-21.
6. Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2018/0201885 A1) to Bittner et al. (hereinafter Bittner) in view of the teaching of (US 2007/0214999 A1) to Meyer et al. (hereinafter Meyer) in further view of (US 2011/0240510 A1) to De Poortere et al. (hereinafter Poortere).
Bittner is directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates for providing surface printing. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0137] that the sulfonate has an alkyl group of a propylheptyl. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0589] that in Table 1, the claimed sulfonate by Applicant is disclosed:
PNG
media_image1.png
173
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bittner discloses at paragraph [0185] that the water concentration is preferably above 50%, which reads on Applicants range of 10% to 60% for D. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0228] that one or more organic solvents are present. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0290] that the solvents are at 5%, which reads on Applicants 5% or more for B. Bittner discloses at paragraph [0290] that the sulfonate surfactant has a most preferred above 50%, which reads on Applicants range of 5% to 71%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Bittner discloses Applicants ranges for A, B and D. Bittner discloses each and every element of the composition, but is silent regarding the presence of an inorganic metal compound C.
Meyer is directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates. Bittner and Meyer are both directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0004] that salts of sulfonated dicarboxylic acids have been known for a long time as a surfactant used for cleaning. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0006] that decarboxylated salts from 2-propylheptanol are disclosed, which reads on Applicants compound of formula 1. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0029] that the compound is present in a combination of water and an organic alcohol solvent. Meyer teaches at paragraph [0039] that a metal of sodium sulfate is present at 0.32% that reads on Applicants D having a concertation above zero. Meyers discloses the identical composition of formula 1 and therefore it would be obvious to have inorganic compound C present in the sulfonate composition above zero, which is silent in the disclosure of Bittner, where both are used for cleaning of substrates with the same composition. Therefore one skilled in the art would find it obvious to have the presence of compound C above a concentration of zero.
Pootere is directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates. Bittner and Poortere are both directed toward detergents for cleaning surfaces of substrates. Poortere teaches at paragraph [0012] that the cleaning composition includes a sulfosuccinate surfactant compound. Poortere teaches at paragraph [0046] that in the cleaning composition alcohols that are monohydric, dihydric and polyhydric has functional equivalent activities that allow their use interchangeably or in a mixture together in combination with the sulfonated compound. One skilled in the art would find it obvious to interchange a monohydric alcohol with a polyhydric alcohol in a surface cleaning composition.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Bittner in view of the teachings of Meyer and Poortere to have a sulfonate composition having the composition ranges that form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1 and 3-21.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
8. 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.
9. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
9. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766