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 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16, drawn to a chemical composition for removing bug splatter from a glass substrate, classified in C11D; 1/72.
II. Claims 17-20, drawn to a method of cleaning bug splatter debris from a transparent substrate, classified in B08B; 3/08.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product of Group I can be used in a materially different process such as in a method of cleaning dishware/tableware.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
1) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
2) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
3) The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
4) The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Avery N. Goldstein on January 8, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 10, line 2, it is suggested that Applicant insert “,” after “guanidinium chloride”.
With respect to instant claim 11, line 4, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and” and insert “or”.
With respect to instant claim 15, line 5, it is suggested that Applicant delete “combination” and insert “combinations”.
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 6-8 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.
Claims 6-8 recite the limitation "the pH modifier" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN112143577A.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘577 teaches an automobile windshield cleaner, comprising the following mass fractions: 10-30% anhydrous ethanol, 10-25% isopropanol, 0.1-1% alkylphenol polyoxyethylene ether, 4-15% silicon surfactant, 2-10% ether solvent, 0.1-1% dispersant, 0.05-1% water-based blue dye, and 17-73.75% deionized water. See para. 7. More specifically, ‘577 teaches a composition containing 20% anhydrous ethanol, 18% isopropanol, 0.5% alkylphenol polyoxyethylene ether, 10% silicon surfactant, 6% ether solvent, 0.5% dispersant, 0.5%, water-based blue dye and 44.5% deionized water. See para. 9. ‘577 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of ‘577 anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al (US2002/0169090).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, 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.
Foley 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 Foley 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 1-12 and 16 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 1-12 and 16 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 are relied upon as set forth above.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
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/January 22, 2026