DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed November 28, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 11, 14 and 17. Claim 18 has been cancelled. New claim 20 has been added. Currently, claims 1-17 and 19-20 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20250826.
The objection of the first line of the specification for not reciting that U.S. Parent Application Serial No. 18/314,068 has issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the broad recitation “hard surface”, followed by the narrow recitation of “such as glass or stainless steel” is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for containing the limitation “and the like” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the Markush language “selected from a group consisting of” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein said essential oils and said colorants are provided to create a pleasant fragrance and distinctive appearance” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks. Specifically, claim 18 has been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang, CN 105694813, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Qian, CN 114806728, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-17 and 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965 is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, independent claim 1, from which claim 20 depends from, recites the broad recitation “hard surface”, followed by the narrow recitation of “such as glass or stainless steel”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 20 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. Specifically, claim 20, which depends from claim 2, recites that the silicone oil comprises polydimethylsiloxane. The examiner notes that this limitation already appears in claim 2. 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. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang, CN 105694813.
Tang, CN 105694813, discloses a glass cleaner comprising 85-99% by weight of soft water, 1-15% by weight of a solvent, 0.1-2% by weight of an anti-mist agent, 0.05-0.3% by weight of a preservative, 0.001-0.05% by weight of a defoamer, and 0.01-0.05% by weight of an essence (see claim 2 of the English Translation of CN 105694813). It is further taught by Tang that the cleaner contains a betaine surfactant (see claims 3 and 4 of the English Translation of CN 105694813), that a suitable solvent includes isopropanol (see claim 8 of the English Translation of CN 105694813), and that the cleaner contains 0.05-0.2% by weight of an organosilicone, such as polydimethylsiloxane (see page 3, lines 22-26 and 46-50 of the English Translation of CN 105694813), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Embodiments 1-5 and Tables 1-4. Therefore, instant claim 20 is anticipated by Tang, CN 105694813.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Qian, CN 114806728.
Qian, CN 114806728, discloses a cleaning agent comprising 1-20% by weight of a silicone resin, 0.01-10% by weight of a silicone oil, 0.01-10% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, 3-10% by weight of alcamines, 1-10% by weight of a lower alcohol, 0.5-1% by weight of walnut oil, 0.5-1% by weight of silver ion bactericide, and deionized water to balance (see the abstract of the English Translation of Qian, CN 114806728). It is further taught by Qian that suitable lower alcohols include isopropanol (see claim 3 of the English Translation of Qian, CN 114806728), and that suitable silicone oils include polydimethylsiloxane (see claim 6 of the English Translation of Qian, CN 114806728), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-5. Therefore, instant claim 20 is anticipated by Qian, CN 114806728.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965 claims a similar cleaner composition comprising 0.66 mL of polydimethylsiloxane, 1.32 grams of sodium dodecyl sulfate, distilled water, isopropyl alcohol, an essential oil, such as bergamot essential oil, and 0.0026-0.132 mL of a colorant, such as FD&C blue and green (see claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claim 20 is an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, the examiner makes of record that the objection of the first line of the specification for not reciting that U.S. Parent Application Serial No. 18/314,068 has issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965 is maintained for the reasons of record.
Also, the examiner asserts that the rejection of claims 1-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the broad recitation “hard surface”, followed by the narrow recitation of “such as glass or stainless steel” is maintained for the reasons of record.
Applicant argues that Tang, CN 105694813, and Qian, CN 114806728, do not teach or suggest in general that their silicone oil droplets are in suspension with an aqueous solution, as required by applicant in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Tang, CN 105694813, clearly teaches that their composition contains 0.05% by weight of an organosilicone, such as polydimethylsiloxane (see page 3, lines 22-26 and 46-50 of the English Translation of CN 105694813), and that Qian, CN 114806728, clearly teaches that their composition contains 0.01% by weight of a silicone oil, such as polydimethylsiloxane (see the abstract and claim 6 of the English Translation of Qian, CN 114806728). Accordingly, the examiner asserts that both references teach low amounts of silicone oil (i.e., less than 0.1% of the aqueous solution) to form a suspension with the aqueous solution. Furthermore, both references teach that their silicone oil is polydimethylsiloxane, and thus, the examiner asserts that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. It is also noted that instant claim 1, as presently written, does not require silicone oil droplets, since 0% is less than 0.1%. Also, the examiner asserts that independent claim 1 contains the transitional phrase “comprising”, and thus, is open to contain any additional components.
The examiner notes that applicant has not provided any arguments to the rejection of claims 1-17 and 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,965. Accordingly, this rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
February 3, 2026