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. Note that, Applicant’s response filed 4/20/26 has been entered.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 October 13, 2025.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 4/20/26 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 1-15 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2 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.
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.
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 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson (US 10,975,333) in view of Maas et al (US 9,714,133).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Larson teaches mildly alkaline bathroom and/or hard surface cleaners providing improved foam performance. The foam has increased stability for a period of time, followed by dissipation with an audible "crackling" sound and easy rinsability. See Abstract. The cleaning composition is preferably foamed and applied to a surface. In general, it is expected that the cleaning composition will provide cleaning in environments where application of a foam to a surface is advantageous. An exemplary environment where application of a foam to a surface is advantageous is where the foam provides for increasing contact time between the cleaning composition and the surface to be cleaned. See column 5, lines 20-40. The composition according to the invention can be foamed without the use of a propellant, and applied as a foam directly to a surface. A solvent can assist in the generation of a foam when the composition is processed through a mechanical foaming head. The solvents that assist in the generation of a foam can be referred to as "foam boosting solvents." Mechanical foaming heads that can be used according to the invention to provide foam generation include those heads that cause air and the cleaning composition to mix and create a foamed composition. See column 6, lines 55-69. Mechanical foaming heads that can be used include those heads that are actuated or intended to be actuated by application of finger pressure to a trigger that causes the cleaning composition and air to mix and create a foam. That is, a person's finger pressure can cause the trigger to depress thereby drawing the cleaning composition and air into the head and causing the cleaning composition and air to mix and create a foam. See column 8, lines 1-15.
The cleaning composition comprises a specific combination of a foaming surfactant, a foaming synergist (typically a solvent), and a foam antagonist, with the remainder being water. See column 8, lines 20-40. Preferably, the foaming surfactant is an amphoteric and/or nonionic surfactant such as an amine oxide surfactant. Suitable amphoteric surfactants include water-soluble betaine and propionate surfactants or mixtures thereof. Suitable nonionic surfactant include amine oxides, alkoxylated surfactants include condensation products of C8-C22 aliphatic alcohols with from about 1 to about 60 moles of ethylene oxide. See column 9, line 20 to column 12, line 65. The foaming antagonist is typically a slightly water insoluble quaternary ammonium compound. The one or more foaming surfactant is present in the composition in an amount of from about 0.5 wt-% to about 20 wt-%, preferably from about 1 wt-% to about 15 wt-% and more preferably from about 2 wt-% to about 12 wt-%. See column 14, lines 35-45.
The antagonist in a preferred embodiment imparts antimicrobial activity such as for example a cationic active/cationic biocide. Suitable cationic active ingredients contain quaternary ammonium groups. Suitable cationic active ingredients especially include those of the general formula: N(+)R1R2R3R4X(-) wherein R¹, R², R³ and R4 independently of each other represent alkyl groups, aliphatic groups, aromatic groups, alkoxy groups, polyoxyalkylene groups, alkylamido groups, hydroxyalkyl groups, aryl groups, H* ions, each with from 1 to 22 carbon atoms, with the provision that at least one of the groups R¹, R², R³ and R4 has at least eight carbon atoms and wherein X(-) represents an anion, for example, a halogen, acetate, phosphate, nitrate or alkyl sulfate, preferably a chloride. Particular cationic active ingredients include, for example, but are not limited to, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC), etc. The foaming antagonist is present in an amount of from about 0.5 wt-% to about 20 wt-%, preferably from about 1 wt-% to about 15 wt-% and more preferably from about 2 wt-% to about 12 wt-%. The foaming antagonist is present in an amount of from about 0.5 wt-% to about 20 wt-%, preferably from about 1 wt-% to about 15 wt-% and more preferably from about 2 wt-% to about 12 wt-%. The composition of the invention may include a suitable alkali to adjust the final pH of the composition to a pH of from 7.0 to 12.5, preferably from 9.0 to 11.5. Suitable pH adjusters include potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide citric acid, and ammonium hydroxide, and they are suitably included in an amount of from 0.05 to 5 wt % in order to adjust the pH to the desired level. The composition of the invention includes a suitable carrier which is preferably an aqueous carrier, most preferably water, suitably deionised water. The carrier is present in an amount of from 0 to 99 wt-% preferably from about 1 to 80 wt-% and more preferably from about 10 wt-% to about 60 wt-%, to make up the remainder of the composition to a total of 100 wt %, in addition to the components described above to form the concentrate composition which may be further diluted as described herein to form a use solution. See column 17, lines 1-25. In some embodiments the compositions may include preservatives and/or fragrances and/or dyes. See column 18, lines 15-20.
Larson does not teach a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time, wherein the device comprises a trigger; or a system for dispensing a foam, said system containing 1) a foaming composition, said composition containing a first nonionic surfactant, a second nonionic surfactant, and a C8 quaternary amine cationic surfactant, and 2) a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time, wherein the device comprises a trigger, as recited by the instant claims.
Maas et al teach "Flairosol" dispensing devices are presented. They utilize a combination of Flair ® technology, precompression valves and aerosol like pressurization of the dispensed liquid. An exemplary device has a main body comprising a pressure chamber, the latter being provided with a pressure piston and a pressure spring, a piston and a piston chamber which draws liquid from a container, and fills the pressure chamber with that liquid as a user operates a trigger in various compression and release strokes. The piston chamber has both an inlet valve and an outlet valve. which serve to prevent backflow. A dome valve can be provided near the outlet channel at the top of the dispensing head, such that once its pressure is exceeded by the liquid, it opens and allows for a spray. See Abstract. The compressed spring provides the needed force. Although the Flairosol device is in a subsequent trigger release and liquid intake step, liquid can still pass by the dome valve and through the orifice to continue the spray. It is in this manner that a user can cause a continuous spray using the metered Flairosol embodiment. See columns 7 and 8. Note that, the Flairsol dispenser as taught by Maas et al is mentioned in para 72 of the instant specification as a suitable continuous sprayer device for use in the system as recited by the instant claims.
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 specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time as recited by the instant claims for dispensing the foaming composition as taught by Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Maas et al teach the use of a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time as recited by the instant claims (i.e., Flairosol) and further, Larson teaches the use of dispensing devices for foaming compositions in general. Note that, with respect to the spring force as recited by the instant claims, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the trigger in the dispensing device as taught by Maas to have a spring force falling within the scope of the instant claims so that the dispensed composition provides the desired and optimum foaming while allowing the user to actuate comfortably actuate the trigger. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
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 system for dispensing a foam, said system containing 1) a foaming composition, said composition containing a first nonionic surfactant, a second nonionic surfactant, and a C8 quaternary amine cationic surfactant, and 2) a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time, wherein the device comprises a trigger, 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 Larson in view of Maas et al suggest a system for dispensing a foam, said system containing 1) a foaming composition, said composition containing a first nonionic surfactant, a second nonionic surfactant, and a C8 quaternary amine cationic surfactant, and 2) a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time, wherein the device comprises a trigger, as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson (US 10,975,333) in view of Maas et al (US 9,714,133) as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-13 above, and further in view of EP3,572,492.
Larson and Maas et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, neither reference teaches the specific orifice size of the dispenser in addition to the other requisite components of the system as recited by the instant claims.
‘492 teaches a spray application of detersive compositions comprising perfume and low levels of surfactant, which provides more even coverage of the surface to be treated. See Abstract. The spray applicator comprises: a nozzle orifice having a diameter of from 0.15 mm to 0.40 mm, preferably from 0.20 to 0.38 mm, more preferably from 0.26 mm to 0.36 mm. See para. 7.
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 dispenser having an orifice size, for example, of 0.2mm or 0.3mm, in the system taught by Larson in view of Maas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘492 teaches the use of a similar spray dispenser having and orifice size, for example, of 0.2 mm or 0.3 mm and further, Maas et al teach the use of spray dispensers in general with and orifice and the orifice size would be a factor in controlling the amount and quality of foaming.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using Larson (US 10,975,333) in view of Maas et al (US 9,714,133), Applicant states that Larson specifies that the foaming antagonist needs to be present in an amount of at least 2 wt-% and that for their composition to work, the foaming antagonist (which the Examiner equates to the C8 quaternary amine cationic surfactant) must be present in an amount of at least 2% by weight. Additionally, Applicant states that given such a clear and unambiguous teaching that the foaming antagonist must be present in an amount of at least 2% to work, one of ordinary skill in the art would never modify Larson to use no more than about 1%, as recited in claim 1 as amended, and all of the examples of Larson are drawn to compositions containing high amounts of quaternary cationic surfactants. Additionally, Applicant states that Larson does not actually teach the specific use of a C8 quaternary amine (to the exclusion of other quaternary amines) for its foam antagonist; Larson characterizes the included cationic surfactants as antimicrobial, biocidal, and germicidal, while the particularly recited C8 quaternary amine has no such significant characteristics as described in paragraph 44, the particular selection of a C8 (rather than a C10, C12, C14, C16, etc.) quaternary amine cationic surfactant is critical to the ability to actually generate foam at all in the present embodiments, where Larson does not attach any such importance to chain length.
Such criticality is described in at least paragraph 9, and rebuts any presumption of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of Larson in view of Maas et al suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, Larson clearly teaches that the foaming antagonist (C8 quaternary ammonium compound)may be present in amounts from about 0.5% by weight to about 20% by weight, which would clearly suggest compositions containing 0.5%, 0.7%, 1% by weight, etc., and would fall within the scope of the instant claims. Additionally, Larson clearly teaches the use of a C8 quaternary amine as recited by the instant claims (See columns 16 and 17 of Larson).
While Larson does not specifically mention of discuss the foaming properties of the C8 quaternary amine as identified by Applicant, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. Note that, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention. In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP 2144. To render an invention obvious, the prior art does not have to address the same problem addressed by a patent applicant. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550, U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see also, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings of the references does not need to be the same as Applicant’s reason (i.e., to prevent a greasy feeling on items or hands). See e.g., In re Khan, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Additionally, while Applicant states that para. 9 of the instant specification describes the criticality of selecting a C8 quaternary amine compound, the Examiner asserts that these statements are not supported by any factual or numeric data and are not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Note that, it is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See also In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 5642 (CCPA 1978) (“Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements in the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish unexpected results.”). See MPEP 716.01(c)(I).
The Examiner asserts that Maas et al is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and Larson and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Maas et al to cure the deficiencies of Larson. Maas et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time, wherein the device comprises a trigger. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time as recited by the instant claims for dispensing the foaming composition as taught by Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Maas et al teach the use of a specific device for dispensing the composition as a foam with an extended spray time as recited by the instant claims (i.e., Flairosol) and further, Larson teaches the use of dispensing devices for foaming compositions in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Larson in view of Maas et al are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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/May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights