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 Statement filed on 02/16/2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPO form.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moringa et. al (US20150140906A1) hereinafter Moringa.
With regards to claim 1, 4, and 6, Moringa teaches a cleaning agent for an alloy material comprising alkyl sulfonic acid, and also optionally comprising an inorganic acid such as hydrofluoric acid among others, where the alloy material can be a nickel alloy comprising 20-75% mass of iron, chromium, molybdenum, cobalt and a mixture thereof (see [0015]; see also [0023]; see also [0025]). Moringa further teaches a cleaning agent composition comprising 500 ppm (0.05 wt%) dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid with a pH of 2.90 in Table 1 (see [0088]). A pH of 2.90 is about 3. 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). Additionally with regard to claim 6, Moringa teaches the cleaning agent to have a pH in the range of 1.5-4 (see Abstract). With respect to the proportions of the pH range of 3-7 recited in claim 6, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (pH of 3-4) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, 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 regard to claim 2, Moringa teaches the optional use of an oxidizing agent (see 0034]). As the use is optional, the composition need not have an oxidizing agent.
With regard to claim 3, Moringa fails to disclose the specific use of a C1-C4 alkyl sulfonic acid or a fluorine substituted C1-C4 alkyl sulfonic acid. However, the use to alkyl sulfonic acids is taught (see also [0023]). This overlaps with the teachings recited in the instant claim. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
With regard to claim 5, the teachings of Moringa are discussed above. However, the use of 50-3000 ppm of hydrofluoric acid in the composition is not explicitly taught. Moringa does teach the anionic surfactant content in the cleaning agent to be between 170-300ppm (see [0018]). Additionally, Moringa teaches cleaning agent compositions 1-8 comprising 0.1-0.2 wt % (1000-2000ppm) citric acid in Table 1 (see [0088]). Moringa also teaches the use of several organic acids (such as citric acid) and inorganic acids (such as hydrofluoric acid) in the cleaning agent (see [0023]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the prior art before the effective filing date to use 1000-2000ppm of hydrofluoric acid instead of citric acid in the compositions 1-8 because it is known in the art that citric acid and hydrofluoric acid are both weak acids with comparable pKa values (citric acid has a pKa of 3.13 while hydrofluoric acid has a pKa of 3.19). Additionally the 50-3000 ppm range of hydrofluoric acid in the recited claim is so broad that it covers the slightest use of hydrofluoric acid in the composition.
Conclusion
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