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 June 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claim 15 and claim 16 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dkidak (US 20170015944 A1), and in further view of Meschke (EP 0506087 A2) is withdrawn.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 Dkidak 2 (EP 3118298 B1).
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.
Dkidak 2 discloses hard surface cleaning compositions, an analogous art (see Abstract). Dkidak 2 further discloses 1-10wt% of nonionic surfactants (see [0030]). Dkidak 2 further discloses the nonionic surfactants may be alkoxylated nonionic surfactants according to the formula RO-(A)nH, wherein R is a C6 to C18 alkyl chain; A is an ethoxy or propoxy or butoxy unit, and wherein n is from 1 to 30 (see [0034]). Dkidak further teaches R may be a linear or branched alkyl chain (see [0034]). Methyl isobutyl carbinol would correspond to the disclosed R group as the compound comprises a branched six carbon alkyl chain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the alkoxylated nonionic surfactants of Dkidak 2 in the cleaning composition of Dkidak, as the alkoxylated nonionic surfactants of Dkidak 2 are surfactants used in cleaning compositions and Dkidak discloses a cleaning composition comprising additional surfactants.
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 Dkidak 2 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 Dkidak 2 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 June 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Meschke does not disclose a propoxylated methyl carbinol according to formula (I). Applicant further argues that all examples disclosed by Meschke are ethoxylated or ethoxylatedpropoxylated carbinols. As Meschke is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Meschke are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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