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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received June 24, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
All rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al, US 2008/0261856 in view of Asmanidou et al, US 2017/0292092.
Nakagawa et al teach a hard surface cleaner comprising 6% of a surfactant system comprising 2% alkyl ether sulfate, 2% ethoxylkated alcohol, and 2% alkylamidopropyl betaine, and 0.5% of a commercially available cationic polyvinyl alcohol (¶39, example 3). Suitable anionic surfactants of the invention include C10-18 alkyl sulfates (¶16) and amphoteric surfactants include betaines and amine oxides (¶19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use an alkyl sulfate and amine oxide in example 3 with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as these surfactants are taught as suitable by the reference.
With respect to the claims 4-7 and the structure of the cationic polyvinyl alcohol, a commercially available cationic polyvinyl alcohol is used by Nakagawa where a quaternary ammonium salt is added on a side chain of the PVA backbone precisely as claimed. As the cationic polyvinyl alcohol is proprietary, the precise structure is unknown, but as it used in a detergent to clean hard surfaces the same as the present invention, the examiner maintains it overlaps the ranges claimed for applicants’ cationic polyvinyl alcohol.
With respect to claim 9, another example contains 50% anionic surfactant in the surfactant system (example 1) and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to use more anionic surfactant in example 3 and satisfy this claim limitation.
With respect to claim 20, any hard surface cleaner, used on porcelain, glass, and metals, immediately calls to mind other products made from these materials, including dishware, and so one of ordinary skill in the art would expect any hard surface cleaner to be effective on dishware, and it is well known that hard surface cleaners may be diluted with water prior to use.
With respect to the pH and viscosity claimed, the reference teaches a preferred pH of from 4 to 8 (¶28), and these compositions may add a viscosity regulator (¶26). First, the examiner notes that a high viscosity composition is useful for clinging to vertical surfaces and a low viscosity composition is useful for penetrating porous materials, even spreading of product, and quicker drying for reduced residues. Both thickened and non-thickened viscosities have their place, and it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the desired viscosity according to their needs. That said, the reference does not teach the viscosity range claimed.
Asmanidou et al teach hard surface cleaners that may have a low viscosity up to 50cps (¶23) and may have a higher viscosity up to 2000 cps (¶24). The reference is relied upon to illustrate the examiner’s argument above, that it is obvious to choose a high or a low viscosity composition, as both have their uses, and still have an effective hard surface cleaner. And so, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a thickener as contemplated by Nakagawa et al to arrive at a well-known viscosity for hard surface cleaners as taught by Asmanidou et al. It is not inventive to select a standard pH range and a standard viscosity range for hard surface cleaners.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al, US 2008/0261856 in view of Asmanidou et al, US 2017/0292092 and further in view of Federle et al, US 2011/0171155.
Nakagawa et al and Asmanidou et al are relied upon as set forth above. Nakagawa et al teach alkyl sulfates and alkyl ether sulfates but they do not appear to be branched.
Such branched anionic surfactants are common in the art, however, as taught by Federle et al which teaches hard surface cleaners (see abstract) comprising a mixture of branched C12-13 alkyl sulfate and branched C12-13 alkyl ether sulfate, amine oxide, and ethoxylated alcohol (¶366). The reference is relied upon to demonstrate that branched anionic surfactants are common in hard surface cleaners and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a branched anionic surfactant in the hard surface cleaner of Nakagawa et al with confidence of formulating an effective hard surface cleaner as branched anionic surfactants are taught as preferred in hard surface cleaners as taught by Federle et al.
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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights