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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are pending. Applicant amended claims 1, 7-10 and 16, and added new claims 19 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Despite the amendment, claims directed to the kit remain rejected based on the disclosure of Rabone et al. (“Rabone”). That said, Applicant's arguments directed to the patentability of said claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims directed to the kit are patentable over the disclosure of Rabone. Remarks 7. The basis of the argument is that Rabone does not disclose or render obvious mixing liquid A and liquid B, and then subsequently spraying the mixture from a single nozzle onto a target surface. Id. The argument is not persuasive because the basis of Applicant’s argument is rooted in a distinction in intended use. Claim 1 is directed to a kit, and not a method, meaning the patentability of the claimed invention is based on the kit itself (i.e. separate spray containers containing liquid A and liquid B, respectively), not how the kit is used. That said, the examiner maintains that the disclosure of Rabone renders the subject matter of claim 1 obvious, and Applicant’s remarks do not challenge whether it would have been obvious to provide such a kit (i.e. include liquid A and liquid B in separate spray containers and package them as a kit).
For the foregoing reason, Applicant’s argument that claims 1-10 and 17 are patentable over the disclosure of Rabone is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear how two distinct liquids contained in separate containers are sprayed onto a surface, yet they are mixed before prior to spraying. It is unclear exactly what is sprayed; a single mixture, or two distinct liquids A and B. Based on Applicant’s remarks, the former appears to be the case. However, the limitation “spraying a liquid A and a liquid B” conveys an act of spraying two separate liquids. The claim should be amended to properly reflect Applicant’s intent, for example by reciting, “providing a liquid A and a liquid B in separate spray containers, mixing liquid A and liquid B, and spraying a mixture of liquid A and liquid B onto an adhesion surface”.
Claims not explicitly rejected are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabone (WO 93/19152).
With respect to claim 1, Rabone discloses a cleaning composition for making an electron donor (soil of organic origin, see p. 1) visible (see abstract), the composition comprising:
a liquid A containing a coloring component including an electron donating colorant (acid dye) and a solvent (see abstract).
While Rabone further discloses that application of liquid A on the electron donor and surrounding area can be followed by application of chlorine bleach* on the electron donor and surrounding area (see last paragraph of p. 11), the invention taught by Rabone differs from the claimed invention in that Rabone does not explicitly disclose that the two liquids (liquid A and bleach solution) are part of a kit.
Nevertheless, based on the disclosure of Rabone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided liquid A and the bleaching solution as a kit comprising two separate containers of liquids. The modification would obviate the need to obtain the liquids separately. In addition, given that liquid A is already in a spray container (see p. 11), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided liquid B in a spray container as well. Dispensing a bleach solution via spraying is conventional and well-known in the art. Spraying is considered an ideal method of applying a bleach solution onto a surface because it allows for precise and controlled application of the bleach solution.
Regarding the recitation “wherein liquid A and liquid B are configured to be mixed prior to spraying”, the recitation merely conveys ability. In this case, the liquids are miscible, thus they are “configured to be mixed prior to spraying”, regardless of whether they are actually mixed prior to spraying when used.
*All commercially available bleach comprises a solvent (e.g. water).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the electron donor is a compound containing at least one nucleophilic atomic group comprising -NH2 (e.g. protein, which comprises an amino backbone) (see abstract).
With respect to claims 4-6, the dye in liquid A can be Brilliant Blue G (see p. 3), which contains a quaternary ammonium salt.
Claims 7-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabone as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP 2011068750 A) and McKechnie et al. (“McKechnie”) (PL 206075 B1).
With respect to claims 7-10 and 19, while Rabone discloses that liquid A can be used to clean bathroom surfaces (p. 10), Rabone does not disclose that liquid A comprises a thickener that gels in the presence of calcium ions.
Murakami discloses a sprayable cleaning composition (see title) useful for cleaning bathroom surfaces, the composition comprising a gelling agent (e.g. carrageenan) that facilitates removal of soilage by gelling it. In light of the disclosure of Murakami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided liquid A of Rabone’s kit with a gelling agent, such as carrageenan, for lifting stains. Moreover, given that the kit would be used on bathroom surfaces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the gelling agent to gel in the presence of calcium ions (see McKechnie disclosing a bathroom cleaning composition that binds calcium ions, meaning calcium ions are common soilage on bathroom surfaces).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 and 20 would be allowable if they are amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above according to the suggestion set forth in the rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As discussed above, Rabone discloses/renders obvious a kit comprising the claimed liquid A and the claimed liquid B held in separate spray containers, and a method of using such a kit. However, according to Rabone, liquid A is sprayed onto a soiled surface to render visible areas of soilage, and liquid B is subsequently used to render invisible (i.e. clean up) liquid A. Based on the disclosure, there is no motivation to mix the liquids together and spray them as a mixture onto a soiled surface, as recited in claim 16.
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 PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
