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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10 and 12-22 are pending, claims 2, 5 and 11 having been cancelled and claims 16-22 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed February 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10 and 12-15 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0048295 to Du et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0056373 to Jung et al.
As to claim 1, Du discloses a composition comprising: at least one pH adjuster (see Du paragraph [0059] disclosing one or more pH adjusting agents, such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide and tetraethylammonium hydroxide); at least one chelating agent (see Du paragraphs [0031]-[0035] disclosing agents, such as malic acid and citric acid); at least one anionic surfactant (see Du paragraph [0064]); at least one nitrogen containing heterocycle (see Du paragraphs [0061]-[0063] disclosing benzotriazole and imidazole); at least one alkylamine compound (see Du paragraph [0059] disclosing that the composition can include one or more pH adjusting agents including hexylamine and octylamine); and water (read as an aqueous solvent (see Du paragraph [0018]); wherein the composition has a pH of from about 6 to 10 (see Du paragraph [0053]) (see MPEP 2144.05(I) where in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists).
Du discloses that the composition can include one or more pH adjusting agents including alkylamines, such as hexylamine and octylamine) (see Du paragraph [0059]). Du further discloses that the examples of the pH adjusting agents include but are not limited to the listed agents (see Du paragraph [0059]). Jung discloses a that pH adjusting agents in cleaning compositions can include alkylamines, such as methylamine, ethylamine, octylamine, dodecylamine (a 12 carbon alkyl group) and hexadecylamine (a 16 carbon alkyl group) (see Jung paragraph [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use dodecylamine or hexadecylamine as a pH adjusting agent since Du discloses the use of alkylamines as pH adjusting agents and Jung discloses that dodecylamine and hexadecylamine are known alkylamine, pH-adjusting agents (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious).
As to claim 3, the combination of Du and Jung discloses that the optional pH adjuster, such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide or tetraethylammonium hydroxide, can be added together with alkanolamine in sufficient amount to adjust the cleaning formulation to the desired pH and that the concentration of the alkanolamine can be between about 0.1 and 15% (see Du paragraphs [0054] and [0060]; see MPEP 2144.05(II) where routine optimization is prima facie obvious and in this case, optimization of the pH adjuster would be obvious since the claimed pH ranges overlap).
As to claim 4, the combination of Du and Jung discloses that the chelating agent can be malic acid or citric acid (see Du paragraph [0031]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Du and Jung discloses that the chelating agent can be in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 15% (see Du paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 8, the combination of Du and Jung discloses that the anionic surfactant can be present up to about 0.5 wt% (see Du paragraph [0064]).
As to claims 9 and 10, the combination of Du and Jung discloses that the at least one nitrogen containing heterocycle can be benzotriazole or imidazole (see Du paragraph [0062]) in an amount of from about 0.001% to about 10% (see Du paragraph [0063]).
As to claims 12 and 13, the combination of Du and Jung discloses that the optional pH adjuster can be an alkylamine compound and can be selected from dodecylamine and hexadecylamine (see Du paragraph [0059] disclosing that alkylamines and Jung paragraph [0060] disclosing dodecylamine and hexadecylamine as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above). Du discloses that the optional pH adjuster, such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide or tetraethylammonium hydroxide, can be added together with alkanolamine in sufficient amount to adjust the cleaning formulation to the desired pH and that the concentration of the alkanolamine can be between about 0.1 and 15% (see Du paragraphs [0054] and [0060]; see MPEP 2144.05(II) where routine optimization is prima facie obvious and in this case, optimization of the pH adjuster would be obvious since the claimed pH ranges overlap).
As to claims 14 and 15, the combination of Du and Jung discloses that the composition is substantially free of abrasive particles, which would be below the 0.2% of abrasive particles (see Du paragraph [0068]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0048295 to Du et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0056373 to Jung et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. 2016/0075971 to Liu et al.
Du and Jung are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, the combination of Du and Jung does not explicitly disclose that the at least one anionic surfactant comprises one or more phosphate groups and one or more of the following: a six to twenty four carbon alkyl chain, zero to eighteen ethylene oxide groups, or a combination of a six to twenty four carbon alkyl chain and multiple ethylene oxide groups. Liu discloses a similar composition where the surfactant can be dodecyl phosphate or phosphate polyether ester (see Liu paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the surfactant to be dodecyl phosphate or phosphate polyether ester as disclosed by Liu since Liu discloses the benefits of said surfactants in the cleaning (see Liu paragraph [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 since Jung is relied upon for the newly added claim limitations as discussed above.
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 DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights