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 and 16-40 are pending. Claims 2-15 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s response filed December 15, 2025, has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-40, in the reply filed on December 15, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claim 1 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 15, 2025.
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 24 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.
The term “substantially free” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially free” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Note that, the specification provides no definition or guidance with respect to the term “substantially free” and in the absence of such definition or guidance, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For example, does substantially free mean less than 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.01%, etc.? Clarification is required.
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 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veith et al (US2012/0156377).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Veith et al teach an agent for treating a hard surface comprising at least two components selected from the group consisting of (a) multi-armed stellate polyalkoxylates; (b) polyesteramides; and (c) copolymers prepared from a quaternary ammonium acrylamide and acrylic acid. The agents of the present invention find use in cleaning hard surfaces and/or providing a soil-repellant finish to hard surfaces such as ceramic, glass, stainless steel and plastic. The composition preferably has a pH of from 0 to 6. See para. 63 and para. 93. The agents according to the invention contain at least one surfactant which is selected from anionic, nonionic, amphoteric and cationic surfactants and mixtures thereof. Suitable cationic surfactants include didecyldimethylammonium chloride, alkylbenzyldidecylammonium chloride, etc. See para. 83. The agents according to the invention preferably contain surfactants in quantities of 0.01 to 20 wt. %, in particular of 0.05 to 10 wt. %, preferably of 0.1 to 5 wt. % and particularly preferably of 0.2 to 1 wt. %, in each case relative to the total weight of the agent. See para. 86. In a further, particularly preferred embodiment the agent according to the invention contains at least one acid. Suitable acids are in particular organic acids such as formic acid, acetic acid, citric acid, glycolic acid, lactic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid and gluconic acid or also amidosulfonic acid. The inorganic acids hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid and nitric acid or mixtures thereof may, however, additionally be used. They are preferably used in quantities of 0.01 to 30 wt. %, particularly preferably of 0.2 to 15 wt. %, in each case relative to the total weight of the agent. See para. 94.
Other such components which may for example be considered are further acids, salts, film formers, antimicrobial active ingredients, builders, corrosion inhibitors, complexing agents, sequestering agents, electrolytes, foam inhibitors, disintegration auxiliaries, soil-release active ingredients or soil-repellents, UV absorbers, alkalis, preservatives, bleaching agents, bleach activators, bleach catalysts, enzymes, enzyme stabilizers, abrasives, polymers together with fragrances and dyes. Overall, the agents should preferably contain no more than 30 wt. %, preferably 0.01 to 30 wt. %, in particular 0.2 to 15 wt. % of further ingredients. Suitable complexing agents include sodium citrate, pentapotassium triphosphate, potassium gluconate, etc., wherein these compounds would fall within the broad scope of “a metal salt” as recited by the instant claims. The method according to the invention is preferably carried out in such a manner that the agent is distributed over the surface and advantageously then either rinsed off after a period of action of 1 second to 20 minutes, preferably of 1 to 10 minutes, or alternatively left to dry. In a preferred embodiment of the method, contacting proceeds at a temperature of 5 to 50.degree. C., in particular of 15 to 35.degree. C. See paras. 118-122. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings Veith et al of would suggest compositions providing the same color shift and haze to the glass surface as recited by the instant claims because Veith et al suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of Veith et al.
Veith et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a method of cleaning a glass article by contacting the article with a composition having a pH of from 0 to 4 containing water, an acid, a positively charged surfactant and/or a metal salt, 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 clean a glass article by contacting the article with a composition having a pH of from 0 to 4 containing water, an acid, a positively charged surfactant and/or a metal salt, 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 Veith et al suggest a method of cleaning a glass article by contacting the article with a composition having a pH of from 0 to 4 containing water, an acid, a positively charged surfactant and/or a metal salt, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veith et al (US2012/0156377) as applied to claims 16-18, 20, and 21 above, and further in view of WO2018/182996
Veith et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Veith et al do not teach the specific chemical constituents of the treated glass as recited by the instant claims.
‘996 a textured glass article that includes: a glass substrate comprising a thickness, a primary surface and a bulk composition at the midpoint of the thickness; and a textured region defined by the primary surface and comprising a textured region composition. The textured region comprises a sparkle of 2% or less. See Abstract. The textured glass article is an alkali aluminosilicate glass comprising, consisting essentially of or consisting of: about 61 mol % to about 75 mol % SiO2; about 7 mol% to about 15 mol % Al2O3; 0 mol% to about 12 mol % B2O3; about 9 mol % to about 21 mol % Na2O; 0 mol % to about 4 mol% K2O; 0 mol % to about 7 mol % MgO; and O mol % to about 3 mol % CaO. See para. 65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to clean a glass substrate having the specific chemical constituents as recited by the instant claims using the composition taught by Veith et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘996 teaches the existence of a glass substrate having the specific chemical constituents as recited by the instant claims and further, Veith et al teach a method of cleaning glass in general.
Claims 25-30, 32, 34, 35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veith et al (US2012/0156377) as applied to claims 16-18, 20, and 21 above, and further in view of WO2012/062372.
Veith et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Veith et al do not teach the use of a basic solution after the glass article has been cleaned as recited by the instant claims.
‘372 teaches a cleaning composition which is used for cleaning hard and/or soft surfaces, preferably glass, ceramic, metal and/or plastic ware. Preferably, the cleaning composition as used in the process of the invention can be used for cleaning bottles. More preferred, the cleaning composition as used in the process of the invention can be used for cleaning glass, ceramic, metal and/or plastic ware, preferably bottles, in a bottle cleaning plant. See page 21, lines 1-20. The liquid cleaning composition comprises active components in an amount of about 0.001wt.-% to about 10 wt.-% and an alkaline source in an amount of about from 0.5 wt.-% to about 3.5 wt.-%, wherein the active components comprising: a) at least one sequestering agent selected from the group of a phosphonic acid, phosphonate based sequestering agent, and/or a polymer of monomers of monoethylenically unsaturated C3-C8-carboxylic acids or salts thereof;
b) at least one C4 to Ci8 hydroxymonocarboxylic acid or salt thereof; wherein the weight-% of the active components are based on the total weight of the liquid cleaning composition. A solvent, preferably water, can be added 100 wt.-% to the cleaning composition of the invention. See page 2, lines 1-15. The liquid cleaning composition comprising an alkaline source has a pH in the range of about 10-14. See page 7, lines 1-10. The source of alkalinity can be any source of alkalinity that is compatible with the other components of the cleaning composition and that will provide the desired pH.
Exemplary sources of alkalinity include alkali metal hydroxides, alkali metal salts, phosphates, amines, and mixtures thereof. Exemplary alkali metal hydroxides include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and lithium hydroxide. Exemplary alkali metal salts include sodium carbonate, trisodium phosphate, potassium carbonate, and mixtures thereof. Most preferred is the use of sodium hydroxide as alkaline source. See page 20, lines 15-25. The process of the invention allows washing, such as cleaning and label removal, of glass, ceramic or plastic ware, preferably bottle cleaning and label removal in a bottle cleaning plant, at process temperatures, preferably of the liquid cleaning solution, in the range of about 30° C to 78° C, and at times from about 60 seconds to about 480 seconds. See page 8, lines 1-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to clean a glass substrate with a basic solution for a specific time and at a specific temperature after application of the cleaning solution taught by Veith et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because ‘372 teaches the use of a basic solution at the same temperature and time as recited by the instant claims to clean a similar glass substrate and further, such an additional step as taught by ‘372 would be desirable in the cleaning method as taught by Veith et al to ensure necessary cleaning of the glass depending upon the intended use of the glass substrate.
Claims 16, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al (US2003/0232173).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Saito et al teach a method for providing a high quality glass substrate that is free of residual polishing particles. The method includes polishing the surface of the glass plate with a polishing agent containing cerium oxide particles, washing the glass plate with washing agent containing the three components of acid, a reducing agent, and fluorine ion. See Abstract. An acid included in the washing agent provides the washing agent with an etching ability. The etching effect of the washing agent removes the polishing particles, which are adhered to or embedded in the surface of the glass plate, microscopic polishing chips, polishing marks, and decom-posed portions of the glass. The acid is included in the washing agent by mixing acidic aqueous solution with the washing agent. An aqueous solution used for precision washing of typical glass products is used as the acidic aqueous solution. To improve the dissolving ability of cerium oxide, strong acidic aqueous solution are preferable, such as nitric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfamic acid, and phosphoric acid. Nitric acid is preferable since it does not cause erosion of stainless steel, which is normally used as the material of a washing tank. See para. 30. Although the concentration of acid in the washing agent is not particularly limited, The concentration is adjusted in accordance with the acid resistance characteristic of the glass material and the desired degree of washing. It is preferred that the acid concentration of the washing agent have a pH value that is 2 or less to improve the synergistic effect between the reducing agent and the fluorine ion. See para. 31. Examples of the reducing agent arc hydro-gen, formic acid, oxalic acid, acetaldehyde, hydrogen iodide, sodium hydrogenphosphate, disodium hydrogen-phosphate, sodium phosphite, ferrous sulfate, ferric sulfate, cuprous sulfide, and stannous chloride, wherein . See para. 34. It is preferred that the concentration of the reducing agent be 0.01 to 3 percentage by weight to maintain the balance between rinsing with the washing agent easily and sufficient amount of the agent required for dissolving cerium oxide. See para. 35.
A washing aiding agent (builder), which is used to wash typical glass products, may be added to the washing agent as required. The washing building agent is, for example, cationic or anionic surfactant, a buffer agent, a pH adjuster, or a chelate agent. See para. 41. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of Saito et al would suggest compositions providing the same color shift and haze to the glass surface as recited by the instant claims because Saito et al suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of Saito et al.
Saito et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a method of cleaning a glass article by having an initial step of contacting the class with CeO2 particles, then contacting the article with a composition having a pH of from 0 to 4 containing water, an acid, a positively charged surfactant and/or a metal salt, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant 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 clean a glass article by having an initial step of contacting the class with CeO2 particles, then contacting the article with a composition having a pH of from 0 to 4 containing water, an acid, a positively charged surfactant and/or a metal salt, 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 Saito et al suggest a method of cleaning a glass article by having an initial step of contacting the class with CeO2 particles, then contacting the article with a composition having a pH of from 0 to 4 containing water, an acid, a positively charged surfactant and/or a metal salt, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veith et al (US2012/0156377) in view of WO2012/062372 as applied to the rejected claims above, and further in view of WO2013/057037.
Veith et al is relied upon as set forth above. However, Veith et al do not teach the use of a cationic surfactant such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘037 A hard surface cleaning composition comprises: (a) 0.1-2.5% polyvalent metal salt; (b) 0.25-5% fluoro silane; (c) 0.25-2.5% cationic surfactant; (d) 3.5-8.5% lower alcohol solvent; and (e) 0.5-6% co-solvent; and where the composition has a pH of between 3 and 7, and where the composition is substantially free of alkaline earth metals. See Abstract. The cationic surfactant is selected from benzalkonium chloride, cetylpyridiniumchloride, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, cetyltrimethylammonium chloride, or cetyltrimethylammonium iodide. See claim 7. The hard surface may be glass, metal, etc. See claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use cetyltrimethylammonium bromide in the composition taught by Veith et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘037 teaches the use of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide as a cationic surfactant in a similar composition and further, Veith et al teach the use of cationic surfactants in general.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veith et al (US2012/0156377) in view of WO2012/062372 as applied to the rejected claims above, and further in view of Jaynes et al (US2009/0324964).
Veith et al is relied upon as set forth above. However, Veith et al do not teach the use of a compound containing diallyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC) in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Jaynes et al teach a terpolymer exhibiting excess cationic charge which means that the molar amount of monomer a) will exceed the molar amount of monomer b). The terpolymer when dispersed or dissolved within the hard surface cleaner or anti fog composition will normally retain this excess cationic charge in the medium of use. See para. 72. The slight excess of cationic charge allows them to bind to the surfaces being treated so that the materials create a semi-durable film that is stable to rinsing, yet will not cause long term build-up of residue. The hydrophilic nature of the materials provides excellent soil repellency and removal effects, as well as beneficial anti-fogging properties for windows, mirrors and other hard surfaces. The structure of the polymer also allows the properties of the polymer to be readily tuned to be appropriate for any type of cleaning formulation required. See para. 17. Surfaces especially appropriate for application of the fog preventive film are nonporous surfaces such as glass and mirrors. See para. 75. Hard surfaces means surfaces such as ceramic, stone, brick, glass, plastic, wood, laminate, vinyl, composite and the like. See para. 73. The polymer of the present invention is added to a cleaning formulation formulation for hard surfaces at a level of between approximately 0.01% and 5%, for example 0.1% to 3%, 0.2% to 2%, 0.3% to 1.5% such that the terpolymer is dissolved or is uniformly dispersed. See para. 35. Suitable monomers a) of the terpolymer include diallyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC), etc. See para. 88. The terpolymer is further characterized by an average molecular weight ranging from 10,000 to 10,000,000. For example 20,000 to 1,000,000, 40,000 to 800,000 and 20,000 to 500,000 are envisioned. See para. 117.
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 terpolymer containing diallyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC) having the specific molecular weight as recited by the instant claims in the composition taught by Veith et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Jaynes et al teach that the use of a terpolymer containing diallyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC) having the specific molecular weight as recited by the instant claims in a similar composition provides anti-fogging properties to glass and further, such anti-fogging properties for glass would be desirable in the composition taught by Veith et al.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al (US2003/0232173) as applied to claims 16, 20-22, and 24 above, and further in view of Haga et al (US 8,231,735).
Saito et al is relied upon as set forth above. However, Saito et al do not teach the specific particle size of the cerium oxide as recited by the instant claims.
Haga et al teach a CMP polishing slurry comprising cerium oxide particles, an organic compound having an acetylene bond (triple bond between carbon and carbon) and water, and a method for polishing a substrate which comprises a step of polishing a film to be polished of the substrate with the polishing slurry. In a CMP (chemical mechanical polishing) technique for flattening inter layer dielectrics, insulating films for shallow trench isolation and the like in a manufacturing process of semiconductor devices, the present invention enables the effective and high-speed polishing. See Abstract. The cerium oxide particles in the CMP polishing slurry thus produced preferably has an average size of 0.01 to 1.0 microns. See column 4, lines 20-35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use cerium oxide particles having a particle size, for example, of 0.7 or 1.0 microns in the composition taught by Saito et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Haga et al teach the use of cerium oxide particles having a particle size, for example, of 0.7 or 1.0 microns in a similar composition and further, Saito et al teach the use of cerium oxide particles in general for polishing a substrate.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veith et al (US2012/0156377) in view of WO2012/062372 as applied to the rejected claims above, and further in view of WO2012/082153.
Veith et al is relied upon as set forth above. However, Veith et al do not teach the use of a salt such as sodium chloride in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘153 teaches a multipurpose cleaner composition comprising a soluble silicate, a surfactant, a polyol and water is disclosed. The multipurpose cleaner composition of the present invention is generally intended for cleaning schools, offices, homes and other locations; and in particular, all types of surfaces including wood, carpet, tile, concrete and glass. See Abstract. In an additional embodiment of the present invention the cleaner composition further comprises one or more of the following additives selected from sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCl), magnesium chloride (MgCl.sub.2), calcium chloride (CaCl.sub.2), etc. See para. 6.
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 salt such as sodium chloride in the composition taught by Veith et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘153 teaches the use of a salt such as sodium chloride in a similar composition and further, Veith et al teach the use of salts in general.
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/March 3, 2026