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 .
Claim amendments filed 12/18/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been considered.
As to the allegations of picking and choosing, it is not picking and choosing to select one element from one list, however long the list may be. When the species is clearly named, the selection from a long list does not avoid a 103 rejection. See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (The claimed compound was named in a reference which also disclosed 45 other compounds. The Board held that the comprehensiveness of the listing did not negate the fact that the compound claimed was specifically taught. See also In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 213 USPQ 441 (CCPA 1982). MPEP 2131.02. Further, the primary reference by including the taught surfactants in the list gives reason and motivation that they would work in the wet air scrubber treatment composition. Thus, there is no issue with unpredictability or a lack of expectation of success.
The arguments point to evidence of unexpected results. While the experiments and remarks compare to examples in the prior art, they are not commensurate in scope with the entire breadth of the claims. The broadest claims do not even limit the components beyond broad categories of surfactant types (nonionic or amphoteric) and do not limit the number of different surfactants or include any specific concentrations. The data is provided for just two very specific formulas with no data or logic to extend the findings over the entire claimed breadth is presented all while the applicant previously focuses on unpredictability.
The applicant argues that Sampson teaches away from the previous combination; however, Sampson does not say anything to disparage or otherwise discourage the addition of humic acid as taught by the combination with Sun et al.
Newly added acclaim limitations will be addressed below.
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 10-13, 17-19, and 21-29 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.
With regards to claim 10, its is recited that there is “one or more” amphoteric surfactants. It continues to recite that the amphoteric surfactant comprises both coco alkyldimethyl betaine AND coco alkyldimethyl amine. It is unclear how there can ever be one amphoteric surfactant when at least two are apparently required.
The same issue occurs in claims 12, 13, 17, 21, and 22.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2012/0219480) in view of Sun et al. (Treatment of Waste Gases by Humic Acid) (cited by applicant)
With regards to claim 1, Simpson et al. teaches a treatment composition for cleaning (and reducing odors) in a wet air scrubber (title and abstract; para [0024]). The composition is made of at least one of components A, B, C, and D (abstract and para [0024]). For mapping to the present claims a composition of component B is used. Component B includes at least one surfactant including a combination of different surfactants (abstract and para [0044]). Component B can include examples of surfactants from component A (para [0044]). This includes amphoteric surfactants (para [0025] and [0032]). Component B can also include nonionic surfactants including regular non-ionic surfactants and low foam surfactants (para [0044]- [0046]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the taught combinations of surfactants for component B motivated by an expectation of successfully cleaning and deodorizing the wet scrubber.
Simpson et al. teaches optionally adding fragrances or odor counteractants (para [0051]) but does not specify a source of humic acid or specifically using humic acid as an odor counteractant. Coughlin also teaches that H2S can be present in scrubbers and undesirable (para [0004]). Sun et al. teaches that humic substances including humic acid act as a natural adsorber and can be used to adsorb odorous chemicals such as SO2, NO2, and H2S (abstract and introduction). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added humic substances including humic acid in order to provide a natural adsorber and deodorizer.
With regards to claim 14, Simpson et al. teaches a method of reducing odors in a wet air scrubber comprising a volume of water, the method comprising, adding a treatment composition to the water in the wet air scrubber (abstract; para [0004], [0024], [0056]). The composition is made of at least one of components A, B, C, and D (abstract and para [0024]). For mapping to the present claims a composition of component B is used. Component B includes at least one surfactant including a combination of different surfactants (abstract and para [0044]). Component B can include examples of surfactants from component A (para [0044]). This includes amphoteric surfactants (para [0025] and [0032]). Component B can also include nonionic surfactants including regular non-ionic surfactants and low foam surfactants (para [0044]- [0046]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the taught combinations of surfactants for component B motivated by an expectation of successfully cleaning and deodorizing the wet scrubber.
Simpson et al. teaches optionally adding fragrances or odor counteractants (para [0051]) but does not specify a source of humic acid or specifically using humic acid as an odor counteractant. Coughlin also teaches that H2S can be present in scrubbers and undesirable (para [0004]). Sun et al. teaches that humic substances including humic acid act as a natural adsorber and can be used to adsorb odorous chemicals such as SO2, NO2, and H2S (abstract and introduction). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added humic substances including humic acid in order to provide a natural adsorber and deodorizer.
Claim(s) 2-9, 15, 16, and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2012/0219480) in view of Sun et al. (Treatment of Waste Gases by Humic Acid) (cited by applicant) as applied to claims 1 and 14 and further in view of Philips (US 6,656,723).
With regards to claim 2, Sun teaches that humic substances originate from decayed plant matter and are widely distributed in water, soils, and coals (introduction). Sun does not specifically name “organic peat humus”. Philips teaches that organic peat humus can be used as a source material for deodorizing compositions useful against H2S (abstract and example 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have supplied organic peat humus as the source of humic acid motivated by an expectation of successfully providing humic substances and humic acid to combat odors and adsorb noxious compounds such as H2S.
With regards to claim 3, the composition can have an aqueous solvent (water) (para [0006], [0053]). Component B includes at least one surfactant including a combination of different surfactants (abstract and para [0044]). Component B can include examples of surfactants from component A (para [0044]). This includes amphoteric surfactants (para [0025] and [0032]). Component B can also include nonionic surfactants including regular non-ionic surfactants and low foam surfactants (para [0044]- [0046]).
With regards to claim 4, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of each surfactant and organic peat humus in order to achieve the desired surfactant/cleaning action and deodorization. The aqueous solvent can be water (para [0006], [0053]).
With regards to claim 5, the one or more nonionic surfactants can include one or more regular nonionic surfactants such as ethoxylated alcohols (para [0030], [0046]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of each surfactant in order to achieve the desired surfactant/cleaning action.
As to the “consists’ language, Simpson et al. does not teach there has to me more included. Also, any extra that might be there can be part of another group or component as the overall composition is still open “comprising” language.
With regards to claim 6, the nonionic surfactants can include one or more low foam surfactants (para [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of each surfactant in order to achieve the desired surfactant/cleaning action.
With regards to claim 7, the composition may have a fragrance added (para [0051]).
With regards to claim 8, the regular non-ionic surfactant can include ethoxylated alcohols (para [0030], [0046]). the low foam non-ionic surfactant can be nonionic low cloud point surfactants (para [0045]).
With regards to claim 9, the combination above results in the treatment composition comprises water and a plurality of active ingredients and wherein the plurality of active ingredients consists of (1) the one or more regular nonionic surfactants, (2) the one or more low foam nonionic surfactants, (3) the one or more amphoteric surfactants, and (4) the organic peat humus.
As to the “consists’ language, Simpson et al. does not teach there has to me more included. Also, any extra that might be there can be part of another group or component as the overall composition is still open “comprising” language. For example, claim 7 from which this depends requires a fragrance which is taken to be outside the closed recited group as part of non-active ingredients or a second open group of actives.
With regards to claim 15, Sun teaches that humic substances originate from decayed plant matter and are widely distributed in water, soils, and coals (introduction). Sun does not specifically name “organic peat humus”. Philips teaches that organic peat humus can be used as a source material for deodorizing compositions useful against H2S (abstract and example 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have supplied organic peat humus as the source of humic acid motivated by an expectation of successfully providing humic substances and humic acid to combat odors and adsorb noxious compounds such as H2S.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of each surfactant and organic peat humus in order to achieve the desired surfactant/cleaning action and deodorization.
Simpson also teaches an aqueous solvent for the composition that can be water (para [0006], [0053]).
As to being premixed in a single container Simpson teaches “[0050] As discussed above, the air scrubber composition may comprise at least one of components A, B, C, and D. The components may be pre-mixed or added individually or in any combination.” If they are pre-mixed before adding them, then they are in a single container prior to being added. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have held the premixed components in a container so that they may be easily held and transported to the scrubber for future use.
Simpson teaches using the composition in the scrubber water volume in overlapping ranges thus rending the limitation of final concentration obvious (para [0055]).
With regards to claim 16, Component B can also include nonionic surfactants including regular non-ionic surfactants and low foam surfactants (para [0044]- [0046]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of each surfactant and organic peat humus in order to achieve the desired surfactant/cleaning action and deodorization
The combined treatment composition is added to the volume of water at amounts that are inside or overlap the claimed range (para [0054]-[0055]). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of the treatment composition used in order to get the desired cleaning/deodorization achieved.
With regards to claim 20, Simpson et al. teaches the composition and teaches enzymes as optional (are part of possible component A but the composition can be one of A, B, C, or D or combination).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 17-29 are free of prior art.
While the prior art recognizes the existence of benzyl capped ethoxylated alcohol surfactants and the existence of coco alkyldimethyl betaine and coco alkyldimethyl amine compounds, the prior art does not provide a teaching or suggestion to add them to the wet air scrubber treatment composition of modified Simpson et al.
The prior art does not provide a teaching or motivation to arrive at the claimed invention within the claim environment.
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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights