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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 5-7 are pending. Claims 1-4 and 8 have been canceled. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed September 18, 2025, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 6/27/25 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN101338251A, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,082,516 (i.e. WO91/17236), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,082,516 (i.e. WO91/17236) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ortmann et al (US2014/0190526) or Peitersen et al (US2006/0112972), has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3,399,013.
‘013 teaches a laundry detergent composition which provides improved grease removal both with and without pretreatment, wherein the composition has a pH of from 6 to 8.9. See Abstract. ‘013 specifically teaches laundry detergent compositions containing 2% of 2-ethyl hexanol, 0.003% of a silicone suds suppressor, etc. See para. 87. Additionally, ‘013 specifically teaches laundry detergent compositions containing 0.5% of 2-propylheptanol, 0.02% silicone suds suppressor, etc. Note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘013 clearly teaches adding 2-propylheptanol to a cleaning composition wherein 2-propylheptanol clearly falls within the scope of the structure recited by instant claim 1 and would serve as a foam control agent since it is the same as the branched alcohol as recited by the instant claims. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that laundry detergent composition as taught by ‘013 would clearly fall within the broad scope of an “industrial or institutional cleaner” as recited by the instant claims. ‘013 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of ‘013 anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 102, Applicant states that the '013 reference does not specifically disclose 2-propylheptanol, as now recited by instant claim 1.
In response, note that, as set forth above, ’013 clearly teaches a composition containing, for example, 0.5% of 2-propylheptanol, 0.02% silicone suds suppressor, etc. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘013 are sufficient to anticipate the claimed invention under 35 USC 102.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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
/G.R.D/December 9, 2025
Prosecution Insights