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 .
Examiner notes approved terminal disclaimer filed 5/27/2025 with respect to U.S. Patent No. US 11,851,637.
Final Rejection
Claims 21-37 and 39-41 are pending. Claims 21 and 40 are independent. Claims 26 and 39 are amended in the response filed 12/3/2025. Claim 41 is new.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 21-37 and 39-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryther et al. (US 8,772,215 B2) in view of Dufresne et al. (US 2008/0146480 A1) and Mueller et al. (DE4228594A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025.have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge Ryther exemplifies working compositions which do not need any modifications and thus cannot read upon the entire glycol ether solvent system as claimed
In response, Applicant’s argument that Ryther do not teach the entire glycol ether solvent system of the independent claims 21 and 40 is not persuasive because the independent claims recite four glycol ethers with a nonionic surfactant system, however this cannot be interpreted as requiring five different reagents in the independent claims. BRI does not even encompass four different glycol ether solvents because eg. aliphatic glycol ethers are hydrophilic and aromatic glycol ethers are hydrophobic. Also note the claim 21 (a)-(d) glycol ethers are the nonionic components within the 45%-90% of nonionic surfactant system. Thus, even though Ryther et al. illustrate working examples outside the claimed range, Ryther guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed scope of the entire glycol ether solvent system because one of ordinary skill reading the specification of Ryther et al. is guided to optimize to within this claimed range by teaching 10-30% amount of hexanol solvent and teach 0.2 wt % to about 15 wt.%. ethoxylates surfactant cleaning reagents and one of ordinary skill can easily add the two higher endpoints of Ryther to arrive at the claimed endpoint of the claims. See col.4,ln.37-40 and col.5,ln.45-50, Ryther et al. teach 10-30% amount of hexanol solvent along with col.7,ln.22-29 of Ryther et al. teach 0.2 wt % to about 15 wt.%. of surfactant cleaning reagents including the same ethoxylates (col.7,ln.37-col8,ln66). Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
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 21-37 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryther et al. (US 8,772,215 B2) in view of Dufresne et al. (US 2008/0146480 A1) and Mueller et al. (DE4228594A1).
Ryther et al. teach pharmaceutical manufacturing (see col.14, line 66) cleaning using a composition comprising the claimed ordinal numbered categories of 4 ethers in amounts of 0.1% to 75% (see col.3,ln.55) teaching:
a) diethylene glycol monohexyl ether (commercially available as Hexyl CARBITOL from Dow Chemical Co.), is taught in col.4,In.65 encompassing claim 21 (a) a first solvent comprising an aliphatic glycol ether;
b) ethylene glycol phenyl ether (commercially available as “DOWANOL EPh’” from Dow Chemical Co.), is taught in col.4,In.30 encompassing claim 21 (b) a second solvent comprising an aromatic glycol ether;
c) tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether (commercially available as DOW ANOLTPNB from Dow Chemical Co.) is taught in col.4,In.48 encompassing claim 21 (c) a third solvent comprising a hydrophobic glycol ether;
d) tripropylene glycol methyl ether (commercially available as DOWANOLTPM from Dow Chemical Co.) is taught in col.4,In.45 encompassing claim 21 (d) a fourth solvent comprising a hydrophilic glycol ether.
With respect to independent claim 21 limitation to about 45 wt-% to about 90 wt-% of a nonionic surfactant system, Ryther et al. teach nonionic surfactants in amounts of 0.1-40wt%. See col.7,In.20-60. It is the Examiner’s position that this range, while not overlapping with the claimed range, the difference is not a patentable difference because Ryther et al. teach 10-30% amount of hexanol solvent and teach 0.2 wt % to about 15 wt.%. of the same ethoxylates surfactant cleaning reagents which one of ordinary skill can easily achieved by addition at two higher endpoints of Ryther to arrive at the claimed 45 wt% endpoint of the claim 1, which difference would not amount to a different composition. Thus, while Ryther et al. do not exemplify the claimed percentage mixture of (a)-(d) glycol ethers with 45 wt-% to about 90 wt-% nonionic surfactant cleaner as required in claim 21, one of ordinary skill is apprised to modify Ryther et al. with a mixture including one or more of claim 21 (a-d) glycol ethers and nonionic surfactant system in the claimed percentage amounts with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results because Ryther et al. teach a cleaning composition comprising a plurality of cosolvents in a collective amount of at least 20-90% see [see col.3,In.55] and name the same 4 glycol ethers of claims 21 and 40 [col.4] in a cleaning concentrate with nonionic surfactants dilutable by water used to remove polymerized soils included in pharmaceutical industry in general.
The composition of Ryther et al. is used to remove polymerized soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, however, Ryther is silent as to the glycol ether solvent system being applicable as an adhesive remover as required by the preamble of claim 21. It is the Examiner’s position that the composition of Ryther is capable of removing adhesives because it contains the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims.
In the analogous glycol ether art, Dufresne et al. teach a method of adhesive removing (including specifically the epoxy based adhesive [0019]) with the same claimed glycol ethers [0024] from hard surfaces [see claim 1]. Dufresne et al. teach an adhesive remover method, using the same claimed glycol ethers also taught by Ryther, thus, establishing that one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the glycol ether based pharmaceutical cleaning composition of Ryther to be applicable in a method of adhesive removal in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claim 21 adhesive remover because Ryther et al. teach the claimed glycol ether solvent system with non-ionic surfactant for pharmaceutical cleaning in general, and Durfresne et al. teach the claimed glycol ether solvents taught by Ryther can remove adhesive in general. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ryther and Durfresne since both are in the analogous art of cleaning with glycol ethers.
With respect to independent claim 40 limitation to an adhesive remover composition comprising: 5 wt-% -35 wt % of a diethylene monohexyl ether; is met by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) the cleaning composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including diethylene glycol monohexyl ether taught in col.4,In.65.
Claim 40 limitation to an adhesive remover composition comprising: 1 wt-% - 20 wt % of ethylene glycol phenyl ether is met by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) the cleaning composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including ethylene glycol phenyl ether taught in col.4,In.30.
Claim 40 limitation to an adhesive remover composition comprising:1 wt-% and about 20 wt-% of a tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether is met by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) the cleaning composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether taught in col.4,In.48.
Claim 40 limitation to an adhesive remover composition comprising:1 wt-% and about 20 wt-% of a tripropylene glycol methyl ether is met by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) the cleaning composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including tripropylene glycol methyl ether taught in col.4,In.45.
Claim 40 limitation to 0 wt-%-20 wt-% water is met by Ryther et al. col.10,In.45-50 teach the composition is formulated in concentrated form which then may be diluted to the desired concentration merely with water.
Ryther et al. and Durfresne et al. do not teach the adhesive remover for removing medical adhesives from healthcare textile as required by independent claim 40. However, Dufresne et al. teach an adhesive remover method, using the same claimed glycol ethers also taught by Ryther, thus, establishing that one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the glycol ether based pharmaceutical cleaning composition of Ryther to be applicable in a method of adhesive removal in general.
And Mueller et al. establish the state of the art that cleaning compositions are commonly known to be effective in cleaning skin, textiles and hard surfaces in general. See title and claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed adhesive remover for removing a medical adhesive from a healthcare textile because Ryther et al. teach the claimed glycol ether solvent system with non-ionic surfactant for pharmaceutical cleaning in general, and Durfresne et al. teach the claimed glycol ether solvents taught by Ryther can remove adhesive in general and Mueller et al. establish the state of the art that cleaning compositions are commonly known to be effective in cleaning skin, textiles and hard surfaces in general. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the glycol ether composition of Ryther on adhesive removal as taught by Durfresne and reasonably expect the glycol ether of Ryther to remove adhesive adhered to textile as Mueller establish the state of the art that cleaning compositions are commonly known to be effective in cleaning skin, textiles and hard surfaces in general. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ryther, Durfresne and Mueller since all are in the analogous art of cleaning with glycol ethers.
With respect to claims 22 and 23 limitation to wherein the nonionic surfactant system contains at least one or two nonionic surfactant is taught in Ryther et al. col.4,ln.38 teaching 2-ethylhexanol nonionic surfactants, and col.7,ln.48-60 teach of C6-C24 alcohol ethoxylates (e.g., C6-C14 alcohol ethoxylates) having 1 to 50 about 20 ethylene oxide groups encompassing the claimed alcohol ethoxylate. Ryther col.4,ln.38 teaches 2-ethylhexanol nonionic surfactants, and col.7,ln.48-60 teach of C6-C24 alcohol ethoxylates (e.g., C6-C14 alcohol ethoxylates) having 1 to 50 about 20 ethylene oxide groups encompassing the claimed alcohol ethoxylate. Specifically col.4,ln.37-40 and col.5,ln.45-50, Ryther et al. teach 10-30% amount of hexanol solvent. Col.7,ln.22-29 of Ryther et al. teach 0.2 wt % to about 15 wt.%. of surfactant cleaning reagents including the same ethoxylates (col.7,ln.37-col8,ln.66).
With respect to the water of claim 24 Ryther col.10,In.45-50 teach the composition is formulated in concentrated form (ie 0% water) which then may be diluted to the desired concentration merely with water which teaching encompasses limitation to the claimed concentration of 0 wt-% and about 20 wt-% water.
With respect to the glycol ether of claim 25, Ryther et al. teach a cleaning composition comprising a plurality of cosolvents in a collective amount of at least 20-90% see [see col.3,In.55] and name the same 4 glycol ethers of claims 21 and 40 [col.4] in a cleaning concentrate with nonionic surfactants dilutable by water used to remove polymerized soils included in pharmaceutical industry in general.
With respect to the claim 26, Ryther et al. teach removing soils from pharmaceutical manufacturing (see col.14, line 66) with a composition comprising the claimed d categories of 4 ethers in amounts of 0.1% to 50% (see col.4,ln.7) teaching:
a) diethylene glycol monohexyl ether (commercially available as Hexyl CARBITOL from Dow Chemical Co.), is taught in col.4,In.65;
b) ethylene glycol phenyl ether (commercially available as “DOWANOL EPh’” from Dow Chemical Co.), is taught in col.4,In.30;
c) tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether (commercially available as DOW ANOLTPNB from Dow Chemical Co.) is taught in col.4,In.48;
d) tripropylene glycol methyl ether (commercially available as DOWANOLTPM from Dow Chemical Co.) is taught in col.4,In.45.
With respect to claim 27, limitation to about 45 wt-% to about 60 wt-% of a nonionic surfactant system, Ryther et al. teach nonionic surfactants in amounts of 0.1-40wt%. See col.7,In.20-60. It is the Examiner’s position that this range, while not overlapping with the claimed range, the difference is not a patentable difference because Ryther et al. teach 10-30% amount of hexanol solvent and teach 0.2 wt % to about 15 wt.%. of the same ethoxylates surfactant cleaning reagents which one of ordinary skill can easily achieved by addition at two higher endpoints of Ryther to arrive at the claimed 45 wt% endpoint of the claim 1, which difference would not amount to a different composition. Thus, while Ryther et al. do not exemplify the claimed percentage mixture of (a)-(d) glycol ethers with 45 wt-% to about 60 wt-% nonionic surfactant cleaner as required in claim 27, one of ordinary skill is apprised to modify Ryther et al. with a mixture including one or more of claim 21 (a-d) glycol ethers and nonionic surfactant system in the claimed percentage amounts with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results because Ryther et al. teach a cleaning composition comprising a plurality of cosolvents in a collective amount of at least 20-90% see [see col.3,In.55] and name the same 4 glycol ethers of claims 21 and 40 [col.4] in a cleaning concentrate with nonionic surfactants dilutable by water used to remove polymerized soils included in pharmaceutical industry in general.
Regarding the exclusion limitations of claims 28-31, Ryther et al. do not use the term phosphorus and do not use the term petroleum distillates. Ryther et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a plethora of alcoxylates, other than the excluded nonylphenol ethoxylates guiding one of ordinary skill to nonyl phenol being optional. Also, Ryther et al. teach general limonene in col.5,In.28 guiding one of ordinary skill that d-limonene is optional and thus encompasses the BRI of the claim 31.
With respect to claim 32, Ryther col.10,In.45-50 teach the composition is formulated in concentrated form without water which then may be diluted to the desired concentration merely with water.
Claims 33-34 limitation to a concentration of about 2-30 or 2-16 oz/cwt (oz/hundredweight) in an aqueous use solution is encompassed by Ryther et al. col.2,ln.60-67 teaching the claimed limitation to the composition being emulsified at a usable cleaning solution concentration or in a concentrated form that may be diluted with water to a usable cleaning solution concentration. See also col.10In.45-50 teaching (typically can be used at full strength concentrate down to a 1:100 concentrate: water dilution) (encompassing claim 32) can be used on a variety of difficult to remove polymerized zero trans fat soils. A more difficult to remove polymerized zero trans fat soil will generally have a higher level of polymerization. It is the Examiner’s position that the dilution explained by Ryther et al. encompass the claims 32-34 dilution and in use solution concentration.
With respect to claims 35-37, 39, Ryther et al. teach pharmaceutical cleaning in general. Claims 35-37, 39 to adhesive remover for removing medical adhesives from healthcare textile is met by Mueller et al. establishing the state of the art that cleaning compositions are commonly known to be effective in cleaning skin, textiles and hard surfaces in general. See title and claim 1. PHOSITA understand from Ryther et al. teach the claimed glycol ether solvent system with non-ionic surfactant for pharmaceutical cleaning in general, and Durfresne et al. teach the claimed glycol ether solvents taught by Ryther can remove adhesive in general and Mueller et al. establish the state of the art that cleaning compositions are commonly known to be effective in cleaning skin, textiles and hard surfaces
With respect to new claim 41 limitation to wherein the composition comprises 5 wt-% - 35 wt-% of aliphatic glycol ether solvent, is taught by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) with a composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including diethylene glycol monohexyl ether taught in col.4,In.65.
Claim 41 limitation to wherein the composition comprises 5 wt-% - 15 wt-% of aromatic glycol ether is taught by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) the cleaning composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including ethylene glycol phenyl ether taught in col.4,In.30.
Claim 41 limitation to wherein the composition comprises 5 wt-% - 15 wt-% of the hydrophobic glycol ether is taught by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) the cleaning composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether taught in col.4,In.48.
Claim 41 limitation to wherein the composition comprises 5 wt-% -15 wt-% of the hydrophilic glycol ether is taught by Ryther et al. teaching removing soils in pharmaceutical manufacturing (col.15,ln.46,66) the cleaning composition comprising 0.1%-50% (col.4,ln7-8) of one or more solvents including tripropylene glycol methyl ether taught in col.4,In.45.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761