Response to Amendment
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 5 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10-11, 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Ceulemans et al (11339352) is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceulemans et al (11339352).
Ceulemans discloses an alkaline hard surface cleaning compositions of the present invention, provide good antimicrobial efficacy, in addition to improved removal of a broad range of grease residues, especially greasy soap scum (col. 2, lines 20-25). Ceulemans discloses 30-99.5% water (col. 3 lines 5-7); and the antimicrobial liquid hard surface cleaning composition comprises an additional nonionic surfactant. The additional nonionic surfactant can be selected from the group consisting of: alkoxylated nonionic surfactants, alkyl polyglycosides, amine oxides, and mixture thereof. Moreover, the nonionic surfactant is present at a level of from 0.3% to 12%, preferably from 0.5% to 9.5%, more preferably from 3.0% to 8.0% by weight of the composition and the alkoxylated alcohol is present from 0.27-8.0% (col. 4, lines 60-65). In addition, in most preferred embodiments, the composition is essentially free, or free of, of anionic surfactant (col. 6, lines 60-65) and the antimicrobial hard surface cleaning composition comprises the antimicrobial agent at a level of from 0.01 to 2.0%, preferably from 0.05% to 1.6%, more preferably from 0.1% to 1.2%, most preferably from 0.25% to 0.9% by weight of the composition including alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and alkyl dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride (columns 5-6). The liquid hard surface cleaning compositions preferably comprises a solvent. Suitable solvents may be selected from the group consisting of: ethers and diethers having from 4 to 14 carbon atoms; glycols or alkoxylated glycols; alkoxylated aromatic alcohols; aromatic alcohols; alkoxylated aliphatic alcohols; aliphatic alcohols; C.sub.8-C.sub.14 alkyl and cycloalkyl hydrocarbons and halohydrocarbons; C.sub.6-C.sub.16 glycol ethers (col. 15, lines 1-28) and The liquid hard surface cleaning compositions preferably comprise a perfume. Suitable perfumes provide an olfactory aesthetic benefit and/or mask any “chemical” odor that the product may have (col. 15, lines 43-46). Example 12 discloses 1.5 % APG and 3.0% C9/11 EO8 and 0.7% perfume which is “about” 3:1 and encompasses the perfume to surfactant ratio.
Ceulemans et al is relied upon as set forth above. Specifically the claims above are not suggested without sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. The proportions of APG and ethoxylated alcohols, specific quaternary ammonium compounds and wiping without previously rinsing are all obvious limitations suggested in Ceulemans et al and suggested therein above.
One skilled in the art in the absence of criticality to the contrary, would have been motivated to utilize non-preferred embodiments to suggest the claimed invention given that the broad teachings of each of the components in their requisite proportions and wiping said substrates with rinsing afterwards are suggested in the broad four corners of Ceulemans et al for the purpose of producing an alkaline cleansing formulations as claimed. Moreover, the working examples do not exemplify the ratio of nonionic surfactants but with the terminology of “about” would be close enough to satisfy the limitations as claimed. In addition, the broad teachings of ethoxylated alcohols to the overall surfactants being nonionic are suggested where the skilled artisan in the surfactant art would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of ethoxylated alcohols to APG and suggest the claims given that in the absence of a showing to the contrary, one skilled would have been motivated to suggest and try various proportions of nonionic cleaning formulation to enable more effective surface tension release as is well known in the art of nonionic surfactants.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-27-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that example 16 does not suggest the ratio of ethoxylated nonionic surfactants to APG as claimed.
The examiner contends and directs applicant’s attention to example 12 and the general body of the reference of Ceulemans et al.
Specifically, example 12 discloses 1.5 % APG and 3.0% C9/11 EO8 and 0.7% perfume which is “about” 3:1 and encompasses the perfume to surfactant ratio.
Specifically, the working examples do not exemplify the ratio of nonionic surfactants but with the terminology of “about” would be close enough to satisfy the limitations as claimed. In addition, the broad teachings of ethoxylated alcohols to the overall surfactants being nonionic are suggested where the skilled artisan in the surfactant art would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of ethoxylated alcohols to APG and suggest the claims given that in the absence of a showing to the contrary, one skilled would have been motivated to suggest and try various proportions of nonionic cleaning formulation to enable more effective surface tension release as is well known in the art of nonionic surfactants.
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 NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761