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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 12/21/2023 and 12/19/2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on March 09, 2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 2 and 5 are canceled and claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 6-16 are newly added.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 US.C. 112, 4th paragraph, is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed on March 09, 2026, with respect to Vangrasstek have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) being anticipated in view of Vangresstek (CA2654120A1) are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
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.
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 1, 3-4, 6-8, 9-14 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Dkidak et. al (US20170015946A1) hereinafter Dkidak.
Dkidak teaches a liquid cleaning composition comprising glycol ether solvents (see Abstract). With regards to claims 1 and 6, Dkidak teaches the use of diethyleneglycol n-butyl methyl ether and triethyleneglycol n-butyl methyl ether as suitable glycol ether solvents in the composition (see [0029]). Although Dkidak does not teach a single embodiment with diethyleneglycol n-butyl methyl ether and triethyleneglycol n-butyl methyl ether solvents, the person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention by substituting any of the glycol ether solvents taught by Dkidak (see [0029]) with the 2 wt% propylene glycol n-propyl ether solvent in composition A (see [0131]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. "This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor." 209 USPQ at 759.). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 21144.06 (II). Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Dkidak does not explicitly teach the ClogP value being between 1.00 and 3.00. However, it is necessarily within the recited range of the instant claim because ClogP is a property of the alkylene glycol ether. Because Dkidak recites diethylene glycol n-butyl methyl ether and triethylene glycol n-butyl methyl ether (the identical alkylene glycol ethers to claims 1 and 6), ClogP is inherent and necessarily 1.19 for diethylene glycol butyl methyl ether and 1.01 for triethylene glycol butyl methyl ether, as recited by the Table 1 of the instant specification. “Products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II. Hence, the ClogP value is inherently taught by Dkidak, absent of evidence to the contrary.
With regards to claims 3 and 7, Dkidak teaches the glycol ether solvent is typically present at a level of less than 10%, more preferably from 1% to 7% by weight of the composition (see [0036]).
With regards to claims 4 and 8, Dkidak does not explicitly recite the static surface tension of the inventive composition. However, Dkidak generally teaches the glycol ether solvent to be present at less than 10 wt%, preferably 1-7 wt%, of the composition and 30-99.5 wt%, preferably 50-85 wt%, of water (see [0036]; see also [0040]). Assuming the upper limit for the solvent mass (5 wt%) and the adjusting the remainder mass (95 wt%) with water, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the static surface tension of the liquid composition of Dkidak to fall within the range recited in the instant claims absent of evidence to the contrary. As shown in Table 2 of the instant specification, when the cleaning liquid composition comprises of 3-5 wt% glycol ether solvent and 95% water, the surface tension ranges between 28.1-39.3 mN/m (see Page 9). Optimization of components would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan in order to obtain the most effective cleaning composition. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claims 9 and 10, Dkidak teaches the use of one glycol ether solvent in the composition and the additional use of “a co-solvent, such as solvents selected from the group consisting of C2-C4 alcohols, C2-C4 polyols, poly alkylene glycol and mixtures thereof” (see [0037]). The example compositions A-D only comprise of one glycol ether solvent (see [0131]). Hence, the composition could be formulated with only diethylene glycol butyl methyl ether or triethylene glycol butyl methyl ether solvent.
With regards to claims 11 and 12, Dkidak teaches the composition to comprise 30-99.5 wt%, preferably 50-85 wt%, of water (see [0040]). Hence, assuming the upper limit for the solvent mass (5 wt%) and the adjusting the remainder mass (95 wt%) with water, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to expect the liquid composition of Dkidak to comprise of 90% mass or greater of the alkylene glycol dialkyl ether and water. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claims 13 and 14, Dkidak teaches 3-60 wt% of surfactant in the composition where the surfactant and the glycol ether solvent are in a 5:1 weight ratio (see [0051]-[0052]). Dkidak’s 3 wt% surfactant limit is close enough to the instant claim’s upper limit of 2 wt% mass. If range of prior art and claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the range are close enough that one would not expect a difference in properties, In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). However in the alternative, given that Dkidak teaches the glycol ether solvent at less than 10 wt%, preferably from 1-7 wt%, of the composition (see [0036]) and the optimum ratio between the solvent and surfactant to be 5:1 (see [0052]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the surfactant to the lower limit of the range taught above, preferably to 2 wt% or less to maintain the 5:1 solvent surfactant ratio. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dkidak as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 9-14 above, and further in view of Nagano et. al (WO2020241017A1) hereinafter Nagano.
The teachings of Dkidak are recited above. Dkidak teaches the general use of a surfactant in the composition (see [0051]), however fails to explicitly disclose an acetylene glycol surfactant.
Nanago teaches a cleaning liquid composition for cleaning ink-jet recoding apparatus which comprises of a nonionic surfactant, two water soluble organic solvents, preferably glycol ether solvents, and a balance of ion-exchange water (see Abstract; see also [0018]-[0024]). The nonionic surfactant is taught to be 0.1-1.5 wt% of the total cleaning composition (see [0031]). Nanago further teaches the use of OLFINE E1004 (an acetylene glycol surfactant) as the exemplary nonionic surfactant (see [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use the OLFINE E1004 acetylene glycol surfactant in the liquid composition of Dkidak for the benefit of the composition having a satisfactory wetting property for hydrophobic mediums (see [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Onishi (JP2019052277A) teaches a detergent composition stock solution comprising of diethylene glycol butyl methyl ether (see claim 1).
Gao Tianhui et. al (CN112708514A) teaches a cleaning solution comprising diethylene glycol butyl methyl ether as an organic solvent (see claim 3).
Kim Tae Young et. al (KR20170114744A ) teaches a cleaning composition comprising triethylene glycol butyl methyl ether as the organic solvent (see claim 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights