DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Final Rejection
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar et al. (US 10,433,545) in view of Hirst et al. (WO 2013/098547 A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge that the amended claims are directed to “hand dishwashing” spray cleaning product and thus overcomes the rejection over Karandikar et al. directed to spray cleaning product for disinfecting surfaces. Applicant’s also urge that the composition of Karandikar et al. is a 5-minute disinfectant cleaning while Applicant’s specification describe cleaning in seconds.
In response, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the spray disinfectant of Karandikar et al. has the same alkyl polyglucoside, amphoteric and zwitterionic surfactants, and quaternary ammonium surfactant as in the claimed spray composition and accordingly meets the claim language. Since there is no difference in the components of the prior art composition and that which is claimed, Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the present instance, claim 1 recites “A surfactant selected from the group consisting of”. Claims 6 and 7 broaden it to surfactant comprising. For purposes of compact prosecution the “comprises” language within claims 6-7 has been interpreted as ‘is’.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar et al. (US 10,433,545) in view of Hirst et al. (WO 2013/098547 A1).
Karandikar et al. teach a disinfecting cleaning spray (see abstract and col.25,ln.61). It is reasonable to presume that the composition of Karandikar et al. can be housed in a spray dispenser because Karandikar et al. suggests their composition can be applied by spraying. See col.25,ln.60-61.
Karandikar et al. teach their cleaning composition comprising: from 0.4% to 12.8 wt% of one or more surfactants (see col.17,ln.26-27) comprising:
i. about 1.3% or more of an alkyl polyglucoside (see col.12,ln.20-25) which disclosure encompasses the ranges of claims 2-4.
ii. 0.4 wt% to about 12.8 wt% surfactant selected from the group consisting of amphoteric surfactants, and zwitterionic surfactants in col.19-20 and col.17,ln.26-27 encompassing claims 5-7 in general.
iii. 4 wt%-11 wt% quaternary ammonium surfactant of claim 1, 12-14 is met by Karandikar et al. teaching in col.8,ln.42-col.9,ln.65 benzalkonium chloride, and dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride blend comprising didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride , and octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride. See claim 1 in col.33,ln.40-45 and col.24,ln.16-17.
Karandikar et al. encompass the claim 1 limitation to wherein the cleaning composition comprises less than 3 wt%, of anionic surfactant by teaching a range that includes ie about 0.4 wt% in general. It is well within one of ordinary skill to understand that this 0.4% amount of anionic surfactant broadly encompasses the substantially free language of claim 11.
Karandikar et al. teach the alkoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant of claims 9-10 in col.17,ln.45-60.
The solvent of claims 15-17 is met by Karandikar et al. teaching glycol ethers and isopropyl alcohol in an amount of 0.2 wt% to about 10%. See col.22,ln.13-23.
The quaternary surfactant of new claim 18 is met by Karandikar et al. teaching benzalkonium chloride in col.8,ln.57 and didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride in col.8,ln.52.
Karandikar et al. do not teach the surfactant ratio wherein the alkyl polyglucoside and (amphoteric + zwitterionic) are present in a weight ratio of from 10:1 to 1:10 as required by claim 1 or a surfactant ratio of 5:1 to 1:5 as required by claim 8.
In the analogous art, Hirst et al. (WO 2013/098547 A1) teach antimicrobial spray compositions (see page 22,ln.5-7) substantially free of anionic surfactants (see pg.14, ln.13) and further comprising the similar ingredients as claimed and taught by Karandikar et al. For instance, Hirst et al. teach nonionic surfactants including the claim 1i alkyl polyglucoside of claim 1 and alkyl ethoxylates of claims 9-10 on page 15,ln.11). The quaternary ammonium surfactant of claim 1iii, 12-14 is met by Hirst et al. page 19,ln.16 with claim 8 and page 7 describing to optimize the amounts of their component (i) quaternary ammonium compound within the claimed range of from about 0.05 to about 2 %. Hirst et al. guide one of ordinary skill to include less than 1% glycol ether or isopropanol solvent (see page 15, ln.1-4 and page 14,ln.16-17) encompassing the solvent of claims 15-17.
Specifically regarding the surfactant ratio wherein the alkyl polyglucoside and (amphoteric + zwitterionic) are present in a weight ratio of from 10:1 to 1:10 as required by claim 1 or a ratio of 5:1 to 1:5 as required by claim 8, Hirst et al. provide motivation on page 14, ln.5-10 teaching it is commonly understood in the art, that if a combination of an amphoteric surfactant and a non-ionic surfactant is used, the weight ratio of the two types of surfactants can vary within wide limits, for example from 1% of amphoteric surfactant to 99% of non-ionic surfactant to 99% of amphoteric surfactant to 1% of non-ionic surfactant. The amphoteric surfactant and the non-ionic surfactant may be used in approximately equal amounts by weight. See page 14, ln.5-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Karandikar et al. within the claimed ratio of alkyl polyglucoside to amphoteric +zwitterionic surfactant as required by claims 1 and 8 because Hirst et al. teach it is commonly understood that when a combination of an amphoteric surfactant and a non-ionic surfactant is used, the weight ratio of the two types of surfactants can vary within wide limits and further Karandikar et al. teach each of the nonionic alkyl polyglucoside and amphoteric + zwitterionic surfactants in an amount of about 0.4 wt% to about 12.8 wt% in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Karandikar et al. with that of Hirst et al. since both references teach similar surfactants in a similar spray compositions as claimed.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761