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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8, 11, and 13-21 are pending. Claims 9, 10, and 12 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed June 3, 2026, have been entered.
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on June 3, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 3, 2026.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 2/426 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claim 10 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al (US2002/0169090), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 11, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN112143577A, has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-16, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 1, line 5, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and” and insert “,”.
With respect to instant claim 1, line 6, it is suggested that Applicant delete “or” and insert “and”.
With respect to instant claim 1, line 16, it is suggested that Applicant delete “for” and insert “total weight percent of the composition which is”.
With respect to instant claim 7, line 1, it is suggested that Applicant insert “wherein the pH” before “modifier”.
With respect to instant claim 21, line 5, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and” and insert “,”.
With respect to instant claim 21, line 6, it is suggested that Applicant delete “or” and insert “and”. Note that, instant claims 2-6, 8, and 13-16 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-16, and 21 are 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.
With respect to instant claims 1 and 21, these claims recite “where other alcohol alkoxylates operative herein have the general formula…”, such that the way the claim is worded, it is unclear if the alcohol alkoxylates are actually one of the required surfactant selections or just exemplary surfactants that are not part of the surfactant selection. Clarification is required. Note that, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the alcohol alkoxylates as part of the required surfactant selection.
With respect to instant claim 1, this claim is vague and indefinite in that it is unclear as to how the “inorganic salt” can be present in an amount “from 1 to 10 Molar concentration” and also be present in an amount of 5 to 20 weight % as also recited by instant claim 1. Clarification is required.
With respect to instant claim 1, this claim is vague and indefinite in that while it recites “tetrasodium ethylene tetraacetate” as a surfactant, this compound is not a surfactant and is a well-known builder/sequestrant in the detergent/cleaning art. Clarification is required.
With respect to instant claim 1, this claim is vague and indefinite in that while it lists a Markush group of “inorganic salts”, many of the members of the group are not inorganic. For example, formamide is not inorganic. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the organic chemical" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that, instant claims 2-6, 8, and 13-16 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to instant claim 11, this claim is dependent upon instant claim 1, wherein instant claim 1 recites a specific group of “inorganic salts” as chaotropic agents; claim 11 recites an “organic chemical” and an “organic molecule” such as “thiourea, urea, ethanol, n-butanol, 2-propanol, arginine”, which does not further limit instant claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt, Jr. et al (US2013/0303422).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Hunt, Jr. et al teach cleaning compositions which are particularly suitable for various bottle washing applications, including label removal. See para. 36. The composition contains 10-90% of water, 0-30% of other solvent, 0.01 to 20% of a chelant; 0 to 50% of at least one surfactant; less than about 25 wt-% sodium hydroxide; and 0-20% of other components, wherein the composition effectively removes an adhesive material from a surface at a composition pH between about 2 to 13.5 within a period of time less than about 10 minutes at temperatures less than about 70° С. Suitable solvents may include organic solvents, such as alcohols or polyols, and oxygenated solvents, such as lower alkanols, lower alkyl ethers, glycols, aryl glycol ethers and lower alkyl glycol ethers. Additional examples of useful solvents include various alcohols, including methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol and butanol, isobutanol, etc. See para. 43. Surfactants suitable for use with the compositions of the present invention include, but are not limited to, anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants and cationic surfactants. In some embodiments, the cleaning compositions of the present invention include about 0.1 wt-% to about 80 wt-% of a surfactant. Suitable nonionic surfactants include alcohol alkoxylates (i.e., ethoxylates), etc. See paras. 66-67. The cleaning composition may further comprise, consist or consist essentially of a number of other adjuvants, trace compounds, dispersants, anti-redeposition agents, stabilizing agents, dispersants, defoamers, colorants, rinse aids, catalysts, corrosion inhibitors, dyes, fragrances, preservatives and other constituents that may be useful in the invention. See para. 91. In an aspect of the invention, a catalyst preferably includes at least one source of manganese. In some embodiments, the manganese source is derived from manganese metal, manganese oxides, colloidal manganese, inorganic or organic complexes of manganese, including manganese sulfate, manganese carbonate, manganese acetate, manganese lactate, manganese nitrate, manganese gluconate, manganese chloride, etc. See para. 103.
Hunt, Jr. et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a surfactant, a chaotropic agent, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a surfactant, a chaotropic agent, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Hunt, Jr. et al suggest a composition containing a surfactant, a chaotropic agent, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt, Jr. et al (US2013/0303422) as applied to claims 1-8, 11, 16, and 21 above, and further in view of Foley et al (US2002/0169090).
Hunt, Jr. et al are relied upon as set forth above. However Hunt, Jr. et al do not teach the use of a thickening agent such as xanthan gum or natural smectite clay in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Foley et al teach a hard-surface cleaning composition for removing cooked-, baked-, or burnt-on food soil from cookware and tableware, the composition comprising a soil swelling agent and a thickening system comprising synthetic smectite type clay thickening agent having an average platelet size of less than about 100 nm. The composition has shear thinning properties and can be used as pre-treatment prior to the dishwashing process. The composition provides excellent removal of polymerized grease from metal and glass substrates. See Abstract. Preferably, the thickening system for use herein contain a mixture of a synthetic or natural smectite type clay thickening agent and a natural gum such as xanthan gum, locust beam gum, guar gum and the like, wherein the thickening agent may be used in amounts from 0.1% to 10% by weight. See paras. 10 and 40-42. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the thickening agents as taught by Foley et al would fall within the broad scope of “gellant” as recited by instant claim 16. The composition of the invention preferably has a pH, as measured in a 10% solution in distilled water, from at least about 10.5, preferably from about 11 to about 14 and more preferably from about 11.5 to about 13.5. See para. 13. Surfactants are typically present at a level of from about 0.2% to about 30% by weight, more preferably from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight, and include nonionic ethoxylated alcohols, etc. See paras. 80-83.
The compositions of the present invention are especially useful in direct application for pre-treatment of cookware or tableware soiled with cooked-, baked- or burnt-on residues (or any other highly dehydrated soils). The compositions are applied to the soiled substrates in the form for example of a spray or foam prior to automatic dishwashing, manual dishwashing, rinsing or wiping. The pre-treated cookware or tableware can feel very slippery and as a consequence difficult to handle during and after the rinsing process. This can be overcome using divalent cations such as magnesium and calcium salts, especially suitable for use herein is magnesium chloride, which may be used in amounts from about 0.01% to about 5% by weight. See para. 69. Additionally, the composition may contain other ingredients such as bleaching agents, alkalinity sources, stabilising components, perfumes, abrasives, etc. See para. 79. Other suitable components herein include organic polymers having dispersant, anti-redeposition, soil release or other detergency properties invention in levels of from about 0.1% to about 30%, preferably from about 0.5% to about 15% of the composition. See para. 98. Foley et al exemplify compositions containing, for example, 2% of sodium carbonate and 1% of sodium hydroxide. See para. 136.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a thickening agent such as xanthan gum or natural smectite clay in the composition taught by Hunt, Jr. et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Foley, Jr. et al teach the use of a thickening agent such as xanthan gum or natural smectite clay in a similar composition and further, Hunt, Jr. et al teach the use of a wide variety of optional ingredients which would encompass thickening agents and thickening agents would be suitable for use in Hunt, Jr. et al for adjusting and optimizing the viscosity of the final product based on the intended use and dispensing mode of the product and satisfying consumer preferences.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using Hunt, Jr. et al, Applicant states that Hunt Jr. et al. teaches a composition where the solvent is a non-aqueous or aqueous solvent and preferably organic solvents, as explained in paragraphs [0042]-[0043] of Hunt, Jr. et al. Additionally, Applicant states that nowhere does Hunt Jr. et al. teach or motivate a majority by weight of the composition being water as a solvent. Instead, Hunt Jr. et al. suggests that water is optional by stating that the solvent can be non-aqueous or aqueous. Furthermore, Applicant states that Hunt Jr. et al. emphasizes the use of organic solvents with the long list of organic solvents of paragraph [0043], which tends to discourage and teach away from the use of a water-based solvent. In response, note that, Hunt, Jr. et al clearly teach compositions containing from 10-90% by weight of water as a diluent (See para. 37 of Hunt, Jr. et al), which would clearly suggest compositions containing over 50% by weight of water as a majority of the composition as recited by the instant claims. Additionally, Hunt, Jr. et al exemplify compositions containing, for example, 61.22%, 61.13%, etc., water, which is clearly a majority of the composition as recited by the instant claims (See para. 157 of Hunt, Jr. et al). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Hunt, Jr. et al are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection instant claims 13-15 under 35 USC 103 using Hunt, Jr. et al, further in view of Foley et al (US2002/0169090), Applicant states that the teachings of Hunt, Jr.et al are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of Foley et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of Hunt, Jr. et al. In response, note that the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Hunt, Jr. et al are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Foley et al is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and Hunt, Jr. et al and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Foley et al to cure the deficiencies of Hunt, Jr. et al with respect to instant claims 13-15. Foley et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of a thickening agent such as xanthan gum. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a thickening agent such as xanthan gum or natural smectite clay in the composition taught by Hunt, Jr. et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Foley, Jr. et al teach the use of a thickening agent such as xanthan gum or natural smectite clay in a similar composition and further, Hunt, Jr. et al teach the use of a wide variety of optional ingredients which would encompass thickening agents and thickening agents would be suitable for use in Hunt, Jr. et al for adjusting and optimizing the viscosity of the final product based on the intended use and dispensing mode of the product and satisfying consumer preferences. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Hunt, Jr. et al, further in view of Foley et al, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights