DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 11, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed March 11, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 2 and 9. Claims 4-6 been cancelled. Currently, claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-21 and 23-24 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office actions, Paper Nos. 20250716 and 20251216.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mussmann et al, US 2017/0198243, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 16-21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lundberg et al, US 2021/0095227, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 16-21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Foster et al, US 2017/0051234, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 16-21 and 23-24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,081,781 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 16-21 and 23-24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,781,403 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 16-21 and 23-24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,865,363 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 16-21 and 23-24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,680,229 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the rinse aid composition is a single use or a multi-use solid composition”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since the rinse aid composition is required to be a neutral liquid. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kolano et al, EP 2,963,100.
Kolano et al, EP 2,963,100, discloses a liquid rinse aid composition comprising a surfactant blend containing a first nonionic surfactant of formula (I), and a second nonionic surfactant of formula (II) (see abstract and paragraphs 9-10), a fatty alcohol or oxo alcohol alkoxylate of formula (III) as a co-surfactant (see paragraph 17), a hydrotrope, such as propylene glycol (see paragraphs 24-25), and organic acids, such as citric acid (see paragraph 27), wherein the liquid rinse aid composition contains 5-15% by weight of the first nonionic surfactant, 1-5% by weight of the second nonionic surfactant, 1-5% by weight of the co-surfactant, 1-15% by weight of the hydrotrope, and 1-5% by weight of the organic acid (see paragraphs 28-29). It is further taught by Kolano et al that the liquid rinse aid composition has a neutral pH of 7 (see paragraph 33), that the liquid rinse aid composition further contains 1-6% by weight of a mixture of protease and amylase enzymes (see paragraph 40), and that the liquid rinse aid composition is used in a process to clean and rinse dishware in an automatic dishwasher at temperatures of 50-70 degrees Celsius (see paragraphs 41-44), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-2, which contain about 75% by weight of water in the liquid rinse aid composition. Therefore, instant claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-21 and 23-24 are anticipated by Kolano et al, EP 2,963,100.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Perez-Prat Vinuesa et al, U.S. Patent No. 7,629,158.
Perez-Prat Vinuesa et al, U.S. Patent No. 7,629,158, discloses a cleaning treatment composition for use as a liquid rinse aid (see abstract and col. 1, lines 40-55). Specifically, note Examples 13-18, which disclose liquid compositions containing 0.3-6% by weight of alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactants, 0.9-3.96% by weight of citric acid, 0.5-6.6% by weight of 1,2-propanediol (i.e., propylene glycol), 0.6-0.9% by weight of a protease enzyme, 0.1-0.4% by weight of an amylase enzyme, adjunct ingredients, and water to balance, which falls within the required range of 30-90% by weight of water, wherein the pH is about 8 (i.e., neutral; see col. 9, lines 63-65) and the treatment temperature of applying the liquid rinse aid is between 5-90 degrees Celsius (see col. 9, line 65-col. 10, line 3), per the requirements of the instant invention. Therefore, instant claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-21 and 23-24 are anticipated by Perez-Prat Vinuesa et al, U.S. Patent No. 7,629,158.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-21 and 23-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
March 25, 2026