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 9th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claim 15 and claim 16 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dkidak (US 20170015944 A1) and Meschke (EP 0506087 A2) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 8, 10, 12, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dkidak (US 20170015944 A1), and in further view of Meschke (EP 0506087 A2).
With regard to claim 1 and claims 5-14, Dkidak discloses a hard surface cleaning composition (see Abstract). Dkidak further discloses a composition comprising 6.2wt% of Neodol C9/11, 0.30wt% of citric acid, 0.73wt% of sodium hydroxide, and 2.0wt% of solvent (see Example A). Dkidak further discloses an aqueous composition comprising 50-98wt% water (see [0017]). Dkidak further discloses additional surfactants at up to 15wt% (see [0080]). Dkidak further discloses a method of cleaning comprising the steps of optionally pre-wetting the hard surface, applying the hard surface cleaning composition, and optionally rinsing the hard surface with water.
However, Dkidak fails to disclose propoxylated methyl isobutyl carbinol or propoxylated di-isobutyl carbinol.
Meschke discloses a cleaning composition for removing debris from a surface (see Abstract). Meschke further discloses cleaning compositions comprising effective surfactants (see page 2 line 33-35) and further discloses an alkoxylate of the disclosed formula (see page 2 line 40-45), wherein x and y are 0-20 and add to at least 1, z is 0 or 1, and at least one z must be 1 (see page 2 line 50-54). Meschke further discloses R may be an alkyl radical comprising 5-11 carbon atoms (see page 3 line 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
88
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Meschke further discloses the R radical may be 2-methyl-1-pentylene (see page 3 line 39). This corresponds to R as methyl isobutyl carbinol.
Meschke further teaches the disclosed alkoxylates may be used as surfactants in cleaning compositions (see page 4 line 31-32, 33-35) at greater than 5wt% in a cleaning composition (see page 4 line 46-47).
Meschke further teaches the sum of x and y must be in the range of about 3 to about 12 (see page 3 line 51-52). Meschke further teaches an alkoxylate having an x equal to 20 and y equal to 7 (see Example 27) and an alkoxylate having an x of 20 and y of 12 (see Example 28). These show an increased percent soil removal as compared to examples showing a more equal distribution of x and y. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to decrease the amount of y to increase the percent soil removal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the alkoxylates of Meschke in the cleaning composition of Dkidak, as the alkoxylates of Meschke are surfactants used in cleaning compositions and Dkidak discloses a cleaning composition comprising additional surfactants. Further, Meschke discloses the alkoxylates have been found to be useful for cleaning soil from surfaces (see page 4 line 31-32).
With regard to claim 2, Dkidak discloses a liquid hard surface cleaning composition which may be for cleaning kitchen work surfaces, glass, steel, and metal (see [0016]).
With regard to claim 3 and claim 4, while Dkidak and Meschke do not disclose improved cleaning performance measured by the standard ASTM D4488-95 as compared to a comparative cleaning solution without propoxylated methyl isobutyl carbinol or propoxylated di-isobutyl carbinol and wherein the improvement in cleaning performance is in the range of from 6-121% compared to the standard cleaning compositions, Dkidak and Meschke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. It stands to reason that the disclosed composition would meet the requirement of improved cleaning performance measured by the standard ASTM D4488-95 as compared to a comparative cleaning solution without propoxylated methyl isobutyl carbinol or propoxylated di-isobutyl carbinol and wherein the improvement in cleaning performance is in the range of from 6-121% compared to the standard cleaning compositions. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Meschke discloses ethoxylated carbinols and mixed ethoxylatepropoxylate carbinols, however, Meschke does not disclose a propoxylated methyl carbinol according to formula (I). As stated above, x and y are 0-20 and add to at least 1, z is 0 or 1, and at least one z must be 1. Based on this, x may be 0. Therefore, the polymer would be fully propoxylated.
Applicant further argues that the examples of Meschke comprise carbinols which are only ethoxylated or ethoxylatepropoxylated carbinols. The entire reference must be considered, not just the examples.
Applicant further argues unexpected results when the disclosed propoxylated methyl isobutyl carbinol is used. However, this is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Claim 1 fails to disclose a concentration of the disclosed compound and claim 14 discloses 0.30wt%-45wt%. However, Table I-III of the instant specifications disclose a concentration of 0.35wt%-6wt%.
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