DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received January 22, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 36, 38, 41-42, 44, and 46 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, and 44-46 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Besse et al, US 2002/0082178 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 36, 38, 41-42, 44, and 46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kott et al, US 6,342,473 alone or in view of Prater et al, US 2010/0237159.
Kott et al teach a hard surface cleaner comprising a cocoamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, organic solvent, additional surfactant, 0.2% sodium polyacrylate, and the balance water wherein the composition has a pH of 9.5 (col. 83, example 24XX). These compositions are shear thinning (col. 78, lines 24-30), are sprayable from commercially available sprayers (col. 74, lines 50-67) and the viscosity is less than 50 cps in the spray bottles (col. 69, lines 30-39). The composition may contain chelants (col. 73, lines 63-67) and suitable organic co-solvents include propylene glycol (col. 63, lines 1-3) in a range of from 1-5% (col. 62, lines 30-34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add propylene glycol and a chelant to example 24XX with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as these additives are contemplated by the reference. With respect to the method claimed, the composition is sprayed from commercially available sprayers. With respect to claim 36, polyethylene glycol is a preferred polymer in these compositions (col. 81, example X), and persons of skill in the art and consumers alike understand that sprayable composition are subject to dilution, such that small amounts of active ingredient will be present.
With respect to the size of the droplets, obviously the liquid itself must be of the proper viscosity to be sprayed, but once this is achieved, the droplet size is almost entirely a function of the aperture of the valve of the spray bottle. It is not inventive to spray a composition with a droplet diameter well-known in the art from a well-known trigger sprayer.
In the alternative, Prater et al teach a sprayer with two different settings for spraying a cleaning composition (¶45) with two different droplet sizes. One of the droplet sizes is 90-120 microns (claim 19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a well-known sprayer with a well-known droplet size to dispense a well-known cleaning composition, as both the composition and the sprayer are taught by the prior art. Droplet size is not inventive.
Applicants traversed this rejection when it was a stand-alone reference on the grounds that examples in the specification show that adding polyethylene oxide to a composition containing a quat changed the droplet size of the composition. First, polyethylene oxide is not a required component in claim 1. What quat was used? Will this effect be seen for all quat-containing compositions? Is propylene glycol in the examples referred to by applicants? The examples referred to by applicants are not commensurate in scope with the very broad composition claimed.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, and 44-46 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barger et al, US 2010/0081605 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 21, 22, 24, 25, 36, 38, and 41-42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheung, US 2007/0054827 alone or in view of Prater et al, US 2010/0237159.
Cheung teaches a hard surface cleaning and disinfecting composition comprising a mixture of cationic surfactants having germicidal properties, 0.05376 of a film-forming polymer, 2.1% organic solvent, and sodium carbonate builder (aka chelant) (example 83). Suitable film forming polymers include water-soluble polyethylene oxide in an amount of 0.05% (claim 1 and example 89). A suitable organic solvent is propylene glycol (¶228). Note that these compositions are largely aqueous, readily pourable and pumpable, and are dispensed from a manually operated pump such as a trigger sprayer (¶25). The examiner maintains a largely aqueous composition will have a viscosity at, or very near the viscosity of water, which is within the range claimed, and a pH near the pH of water, also within the range claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use propylene glycol as the organic solvent in example 83 with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as this solvent is contemplated by the reference. With respect to the method claimed, the composition is sprayed from commercially available trigger sprayers. With respect to claim 36, polyethylene oxide is a preferred polymer in these compositions, and persons of skill in the art and consumers alike understand that sprayable composition are subject to dilution, such that small amounts of active ingredient will be present.
With respect to the size of the droplets, obviously the liquid itself must be of the proper viscosity to be sprayed, but once this is achieved, the droplet size is almost entirely a function of the aperture of the valve of the spray bottle. It is not inventive to spray a composition with a droplet diameter well-known in the art from a well-known trigger sprayer.
In the alternative, Prater et al teach a sprayer with two different settings for spraying a cleaning composition (¶45) with two different droplet sizes. One of the droplet sizes is 90-120 microns (claim 19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a well-known sprayer with a well-known droplet size to dispense a well-known cleaning composition, as both the composition and the sprayer are taught by the prior art. Droplet size is not inventive.
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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights