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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that Applicant has NOT filed any information disclosure statement.
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 1-4 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.
Applicant’s independent claim 1 reads as followed:
“A compound fluorine-free foam extinguishing agent, comprising components of the following parts by weight: 6-8 parts of alkyl glycoside, 10-14 parts of polysiloxane quaternary ammonium salt, 0.5-1 part of silicon dioxide and 60-65 parts of water.”.
Applicant’s independent claim 1 is deemed to be indefinite in regards to the set forth “parts by weight” concentration ranges because the combined “parts by weight” concentrations of all components can never add up to 100 “parts by weight”. At most the combined concentration of alkyl glycoside (a nonionic surfactant), polysiloxane quaternary ammonium salt (a cationic surfactant), silicon dioxide and water is 88 parts by weight and at least it is 76.5 parts by weight. It is thus totally unclear what the final reference point is in regards to the listed “parts by weight” actually is, because the claim has NO statement that said “parts by weight” are based on 100 parts by weight of the fluorine-free foam extinguishing agent taken as whole. Please note that all components within a composition must add up to 100% by weight. In light of said observation, does Applicant’s fluorine-free foam extinguishing agent require additional non-specified components at a combined concentration of between 12 parts by weight and 23.5 parts by weight, so that to total parts by weight of the fluorine-free foam extinguishing agent is 100 parts by weight?
Dependent claim 2 is also indefinite for the same basic reasons independent claim 1 is indefinite. Dependent claims 3-4 are also indefinite because they are either directly or indirectly dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Examination Note:
Due to the indefinite nature of independent claim 1 (see above) and all claims dependent thereof, the set forth “parts by weight” concentration ranges for the various components will be held in abeyance until said indefiniteness is overcome.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112335687 A (English language abstract) in view of Cunningham et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2013/0333120 A1.
CN 112335687 A discloses a long-acting antibacterial sterilizing liquid, comprising a main material and auxiliary material, wherein the main material comprises de-ionized water at 50%-80%; the auxiliary material comprises curable composite organic silicone quaternary ammonium salt (i.e. a polysiloxane quaternary ammonium salt) at 20%-30%; alkyl glycoside at 10%-20% and plant essential oil at 10%-30%, see independent claim 1. The overall antibacterial sterilizing liquid can comprise 50 wt.%, 60 wt.% or 80 wt.% deionized water, 10 wt.%, 15 wt.% or 20 wt.% curable composite silicone quaternary ammonium salt, 5 wt.% or 20 wt.% alkyl glycoside, and 5 wt.%, 10 wt.% or 30 wt.% vegetable essential oil.
CN 112335687 A differs from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there is not a direct disclosure, within the English language abstract, to the further incorporation of silicon dioxide (i.e. silica) into the antibacterial sterilizing liquid composition.
Cunningham et al. discloses stain-discharging and removing compositions and systems. The cleaning compositions can discharge the color of blood, menstrual fluids, or other organic stains. In particular, the present invention achieves a balance between control of unwanted liquid spreading by lateral wicking on a stained textile fabric to lessen the size of wet spots and maintaining the cleaning efficacy of the composition by means of specific kinds of thickening agents. The composition includes an oxidizing agent such as peroxides, a cell-lysing agent, a chelating agent, an antioxidant, a thickener, and other optional ingredients that are selectively employed to achieve an aqueous based composition that exhibits good shelf stability and stain removal properties. The thickening agent may include a cellulosic or clay material, starch, gum, fatty acid, fatty alcohol, hydrophilic colloidal particles, polyoxyethylene glycol or polyoxyethylene glycol derivatives including fatty acid esters and ethers, or a combination thereof, see abstract.
Cunningham et al.’s paragraph [0039] discloses: “In still another embodiment, the thickening agent may comprise hydrophilic colloidal particles. Hydrophilic colloidal particles well suited for use in the present disclosure include microcrystalline cellulose, fumed silica, silica, hydrated silica, and mixtures thereof. Specifically, the thickening agent may be Cab-o-sil M5 (INCI designation: fumed silica) available from Cabot Corporation (Tuscola, Ill.). Another example is Avicel 591 (INCI designation: microcrystalline cellulose and cellulose gum) available from FMC Corporation (Philadelphia, Pa.).” [Emphasis added].
Cunningham et al.’s paragraph [0056] discloses that the composition can include alkyl glycoside as nonionic surfactants.
Cunningham et al.’s paragraph [0059] discloses that the composition can include silicone quaternary ammonium compounds (e.g. a polysiloxane quaternary ammonium salt) as a cationic surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of the secondary reference to Cunningham et al., as strong motivation to further include silica (i.e. silicon dioxide) as a thickening agent in CN 112335687 A’s antibacterial sterilizing liquid for the benefits it would impart (e.g. an increase retention time on a surface) which would impart a longer and enhanced sterilizing effect of the antibacterial sterilizing liquid.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108653033 A (English language abstract) or CN 108938472 A (English language abstract), both references individually in view of Patterson et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 20180338900 A1.
CN 108653033 A discloses preparing a color-protecting shampoo comprising: cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium lauryl amidine glycinate, (8C-16C) alkyl glycoside, cocodiethanolamine,acrylic copolymer, organosilicone quaternary ammonium salt (i.e. a polysiloxane quaternary ammonium salt) and deionized water.
CN 108938472 A discloses a pigment sedimentation type shampoo is prepared by weighing raw materials, taking sodium lauryl ammonium glycinate, deionized water, cocamidopropyl betaine, silicone quaternary ammonium salt 16 (i.e. a polysiloxane quaternary ammonium salt), 8-16C alkyl glycoside, polyquaternium 91, acrylic copolymer, hydroxyethyl cellulose ether quaternary ammonium salt and coconut oil diethanolamine.
Patterson et al. discloses methods for treating hair, for example, methods for imparting desirable cosmetic properties to the hair, especially hair treated with a chemical treatment composition, see abstract. Patterson et al.’s hair treatment compositions (e.g. shampoos) can further comprise alkly polyglycoside as nonionic emulsifiers, see paragraph [0154], quaternary ammonium silicone of formula (I) (i.e. a polysiloxane quaternary ammonium salt) as cationic emulsifiers, see paragraph [0396] and colloidal silicon dioxide as a thickening agent, see paragraphs [0078], [0292], Tables and paragraph [0567].
CN 108653033 A and CN 108938472 A individually differ from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there is not a direct disclosure, within their English language abstracts, to the further incorporation of silicon dioxide (i.e. silica) into their shampoo compositions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of the secondary reference to Patterson et al., as strong motivation to further include silica (i.e. silicon dioxide) as a thickening agent in CN 108653033 A’s and CN 108938472 A’s shampoo compositions for the benefits it would impart (e.g. an increase viscosity) which would impart both increase shampoo stability during storage, and longer and enhanced shampooing/treating effect when actually used for shampooing.
Claims Free of Prior-Art Rejections
Dependent claims 3-4, drawn to a preparation method for the compound fluorine-free foam extinguishing agent, are deemed to be free of any prior-art rejection(s), because no prior-art reference or combination of prior-art references is/are deemed to teach or suggests Applicant’s specifically claimed preparation method steps S1-S5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764