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 1-21 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a foamable cleaning agent, classified in C11D; 3/30.
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method for preparing an aerosol product, classified in C11D; 11/00.
III. Claim 21, drawn to a method of cleaning the air intake system with an aerosol product, classified in B08B; 3/08.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Group I and Group III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product of Group I can be used in a materially different process such as in a method of cleaning textile/laundry.
Inventions Group II and Group I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product of Group I can be made by a materially different process such as by simultaneously mixing all the components together including the propellant and then loading into the aerosol can.
Inventions of Group II and Group III are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions have a materially different function or effect since the invention of Group II, which is drawn to a method for preparing an aerosol product, has a materially different function and effect from the invention of Group III, which is drawn to a method of cleaning an air intake system. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
1) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
2) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
3) The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
4) The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mary Cameron on November 18, 2025, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 20 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 1, 2023, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Note that, the copy of the International Search Report of PCT/CN2021/097590, mailed 2022-03-04 is unclear and is unreadable, only part of the document is visible.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 1, line 1, it is suggested that Applicant delete “components”.
With respect to instant claim 1, line 4, it is suggested that Applicant delete the abbreviation “LDEA”.
With respect to instant claim 8, line 1, it is suggested that Applicant delete “a” and insert “the”.
With respect to instant claim 16, line 1, it is suggested that Applicant delete “components”.
With respect to instant claim 16, line 6, it is suggested that Applicant delete the abbreviation “LDEA”.
With respect to instant claim 19, line 5, it is suggested that Applicant delete the abbreviation “LDEA”. Note that, instant claims 2-7, 9-15, 17, and 18 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claims 1 and 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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.
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 19 contain the trademark/trade name “APG2000” (claims 1, 16, 19); and “D80” and “D100” (claim 9). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an alkyl polyglucoside (APG2000) and an alkane solvent (D80 solvent and D100 solvent) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Note that, instant claims 2-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 18 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claims 1 and 16.
With respect to instant claim 11, this claim is vague and indefinite in that it is unclear what it meant by “ratio”; for instance, is it a ratio by weight, volume, molar, etc.? Clarification is required. Note that, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the ratio as a weight ratio which is consistent with the Examples in the instant specification.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3,486,303 in view of WO2020/109026 and Piorkowski (US2020/0157475).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘303 teaches washing or cleaning compositions suitable for removing proteinaceous and non-proteinaceous stains; the compositions comprise a surfactant and enzyme, wherein the compositions have an alkaline pH; and the invention further relates to uses of such compositions. See Abstract. The washing or cleaning composition is in a solid, liquid, gel, or paste form, preferably, in a solid form. In one embodiment, the washing or cleaning composition has a pH between about pH 9 and about pH 12. The surfactant of the washing or cleaning composition is selected from the group consisting of an anionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant, an ampholytic surfactant, and a combinations thereof. Suitable non-ionic surfactants an alkyl polyglycoside, an alkoxylated, ethoxylated, or propoxylated primary alcohol having from 8 to 18 carbon atoms and 1 to 12 moles of ethylene oxide (EO) and/or from 1 to 10 moles of propylene oxide (PO) per mole of alcohol, etc. See paras. 6-12. The washing or cleaning composition can comprise about 1 % by weight to about 45% by weight, about 3% by weight to about 30% by weight, or about 3% by weight to about 19% by weight of one or more surfactants. See para. 34. Suitable anionic surfactants include at least one alpha-sulfofatty acid ester such as a C18 methyl ester sultanate, or a mixture thereof. In another embodiment, the alpha-sulfofattyacid ester of formula {I) can be a methyl ester sulfonate, such as a mixture of C12-C18 methyl ester sulfonates, More typically, the a-sulfofatty acid ester is a salt, such as sodium or potassium salt. The a-sulfofatty acid ester can be a sodium methyl ester sulfonate, such as a sodium C8-C18 methyl ester sulfonate. See paras. 40-41. Foam stabilizers may be used in the composition and include fatty acid amide surfactants. Suitable fatty acid amides are C8-C20 alkanol amides, monoethanolamides, diethanolamides, and isopropanolamides, which may be used in amounts from about 1 to about 20% by weight. See para. 63. The composition may be in the form of a unit dose. See claim 11. Polyethylene glycol may be used as a clay soil removal and anti-redeposition agent in amounts from about 0.01% to about 10% by weight. See paras. 79-82.
‘303 does not teach the specific amount of water, the use of alkylpolyglycoside APG2000, or a composition containing an alpha-sulfofatty acid methyl ester salt, alkylpolyglycoside APG2000, a fatty acid diethanolamide, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘026 teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising a preservation system comprising a short chain (Cl to C6), unsaturated, organic acid or salt thereof having at least two carboxyl groups, a surfactant system and an inorganic salt. The invention also relates to a method of preparing such a composition and the use of such a composition. See Abstract. The liquid detergent composition of the present invention comprises a surfactant system. The surfactant system comprises at least one primary and at least one secondary surfactant. The secondary surfactant of the present invention is selected from anionic, non-ionic and amphoteric surfactants. See pages 3 and 4. Suitable nonionic surfactants include alkyl polyglycosides under the tradename PLANTACARE 2000 UP having a C8-C16 alkyl portion, etc. See pages 7 and 8. Note that, PLANTACARE 2000 UP is listed on page 5 of the instant specification as a suitable alkyl polyglycoside APG2000.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use PLANTACARE 2000 UP (i.e., alkyl polyglycoside APG2000) in the composition taught by ‘303, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘026 teaches the use of PLANTACARE 2000 UP (i.e., alkyl polyglycoside APG2000) as a suitable alkyl polyglycoside surfactant in a similar composition and further, ‘303 teaches the use of alkyl polyglycoside surfactants in general.
Piorkowski teaches a unit dose pack which includes a wash composition and a film encapsulating the washing composition. The wash composition includes an ionic surfactant, water, sodium sulfite, and a chelating compound. See Abstract. Water may be present in amounts from about 5% to about 45% by weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use water in an amount, for example, of 5% or 10% by weight, in the composition taught by ‘303, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Piorkowski teaches the use of water in an amount, for example, of 5% or 10% by weight, in a similar unit dose composition and further, ‘303 teaches the use of liquid unit dose compositions 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 formulate a composition containing an alpha-sulfofatty acid methyl ester salt, alkylpolyglycoside APG2000, a fatty acid diethanolamide, water, 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 ‘303 in view of ‘026 and Piorkowski suggest a composition containing an alpha-sulfofatty acid methyl ester salt, alkylpolyglycoside APG2000, a fatty acid diethanolamide, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of ‘303 in view of ‘026 and Piorkowski would suggest compositions having the same foamable properties as recited by the instant claims because ‘303 in view of ‘026 and Piorkowski teach 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 ‘303 in view of ‘026 and Piorkowski.
Claims 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3,486,303 in view of WO2020/109026 and Piorkowski (US2020/0157475) as applied to claims 1-15 above, and further in view of Weinberger (US 4,390,466).
‘303 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘303 does not teach the use of an alkane solvent in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Weinberger teaches aqueous liquid detergents having superior soil penetration, dissolving and suspending properties comprising a lower alkanolacetamide and/or a liquid hydrocarbon such as an isoparaffinic hydrocarbon. The detergents may be used in laundering natural or synthetic fabrics or general purpose cleaning. See Abstract. Excellent soil penetrating, dissolving and suspending characteristics are obtained according to the invention by the use of a lower alkanolacetamide. Further, excellent results are obtained by the use of a liquid hydrocarbon, both of these non-ionic materials being described hereinafter. The liquid hydrocarbon component of the invention is preferably an isoparaffinic hydrocarbon, such materials being available commercially as products of petroleum refining. Examples of isoparaffinic hydrocarbons are the Isopar solvents of the Exxon Company, U.S.A. of Houston, Tex. and the Soltrol solvents of Phillips Petroleum Co. of Bartlesville, Okla. Preferred isoparaffinic hydrocarbons are liquids with boiling points of at least 100.degree. C., more preferably at least about 200.degree. C., e.g. about 200.degree. to 300.degree. C. with average molecular weights of about 190 to 200. The isoparaffinic hydrocarbons may be described as acyclic, aliphatic branched chain hydrocarbon mixtures with total saturates of about 99 volume % or greater and total aromatics of about 1 volume % or less. See column 2, lines 20-60.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an alkane solvent such as an isoparaffin solvent in the composition taught by ‘303, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Weinberger teaches that the use of an isoparaffin solvent in a similar composition provides excellent soil penetrating, dissolving and suspending characteristics in a similar composition and further, such properties/characteristic would be desirable in the composition taught by ‘303.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3,486,303 in view of WO2020/109026 and Piorkowski (US2020/0157475) as applied to claims 1-15 above, and further in view of EP 3,415,603.
‘303 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘303 does not teach the use of an aerosol can containing a propellant in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘603 teaches a consumer product comprising a laundry treatment composition housed in a container, wherein; the container comprises a spray applicator and an internal chamber comprising the laundry treatment composition and the laundry treatment composition is in contact with the spray applicator and the spray applicator is capable of spraying the laundry treatment composition into the environment external to the container upon activation of the spray applicator. See para. 8. Suitable spray dispensers include hand pump (sometimes referred to as "trigger") devices, pressurized can devices, electrostatic spray devices, etc. Preferably the spray dispenser is nonsolvent propellant pressurized and the spray means are of the trigger dispensing type. The spray dispenser can be a pre-compression sprayer or an aerosol spray with a pressure control valve, both commercially available in the art. See para. 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to package the composition as taught by ’303 in an aerosol can along with a propellant, with a reasonable expectation of success, ‘603 teaches the use of a similar composition which is packaged in an aerosol can along with a propellant and further, ‘303 teaches the preparation of a wide variety of liquid detergents which would be suitable for activation from an aerosol can along with a propellant.
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/April 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights