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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/17/2026.
Claims 1, 8-10, 16, and 20 are pending. Claims 2-7, 11-15, and 17-19 are canceled, claims 1 and 16 are currently amended, and claim 20 is withdrawn.
The objection of claim 16 is withdrawn because of applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 10, and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iverson (US20090048143A1) is withdrawn because of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iverson (US20090048143A1) as evidenced by Technical Data Sheet (Glucapon 425N) is withdrawn because of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 1-9, and 14-19 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koontz (WO2006136774A1) is withdrawn because of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Koontz (WO2006136774A1) is withdrawn because of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Iverson (US20090048143A1) is withdrawn because of applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, new grounds of rejection are made below.
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.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 16 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.
With regards to claim 1, the phrases “ less than 3 wt.% of anionic surfactant by weight of the cleaning composition” (line 10) and “wherein the surfactant system comprises from 0.0 to 1 wt.% anionic surfactant by weight of the cleaning composition” (line 20-21) render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the anionic surfactant in the composition has an upper limit of 1 wt% or 3 wt%.
The phrase “wherein the cleaning composition comprises from 4 to 10 wt.% alkyl polyglucoside by weight of the cleaning composition wherein the ratio of alkyl polyglucoside to ethoxylated alcohol co-surfactant is from 3:1 to 1.25:1” also renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the minimum ratio of alkyl polyglucoside to co-surfactant can be 1.25:1 if both surfactants can be present at 4 wt% of the composition minimum. The ratio suggests there should be more alkyl polyglucoside than ethoxylate alcohol co-surfactant in the composition. However, the weight ranges for each surfactant suggests they could both exist at 4 wt%.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, this claim will be interpreted as the anionic surfactant comprising at most 1 wt% of the composition, while the alkyl polyglucoside at least 5 wt% of the composition to maintain the 1.25:1 ratio.
Claims 8-10, and 16 inherit this rejection.
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.
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, 8-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nekmard (US20100144581A1) as evidenced by Technical Data Sheet.
Nekmard teaches a cleaning composition for cleaning hard surfaces with a pH of 3 or less comprising an acid system, an organic solvent, and surfactants (see Abstract). With regards to claim 1, Nekmard teaches the inventive composition to be packaged in a spray apparatus that can dispense the product through sprays (see [0126]). The composition can comprise of up to 5 wt% alkyl polyglucosides (APG) such as Glucopon 425 (see [0096]-[0098]), and 0.01-5 wt% of ethoxylated alcohol co-surfactant (see [0034]-[0035]). Straight chain C6-C11 fatty alcohol ethoxylates with 3-6 moles of ethylene oxide are specified (see [0046]). Nekmard teaches anionic surfactants to be excluded from the inventive composition in preferred embodiments, which means anionic surfactant is not required (see [0044]). Nkemard also teaches the use of citric and lactic acid as co-components of the acid constituent system which comprises preferably between 1-15 wt% of the composition (see [0022]; see also [0025]). The acid constituent system in Example 2 comprises a total of 8.64 wt% acid (5.0 wt% sulfamic acid, 1.64 wt% formic acid, and 2.0 oxalic acid) (see Table 1). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect to add 3-6.36 wt% of citric or lactic acid co-acid to this system to adjust the pH of the composition (see [0100]).The viscosity of the invetive composition is taught be preferably 30 cps (see [0116]).
Although Nekmard does not explicitly disclose APG, ethoxylated alcohol co-surfactant, and lactic or citric acid in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have combined these limitations based on the general teachings of Nekmard into a low pH cleaning composition. This combination would have the expected benefit of disinfecting hard surfaces in the presence microorganisms of hard surfaces (see [0128]). Nekmard does not explicitly disclose ratios of APG to the ethoxylated alcohol co-surfactant, a person of ordinary skill would have optimized the weight ranges of the surfactants based on the general teachings of Nekmard to arrive at the ratios of the instant claim. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 8-9, Glucopon 425N is known in the art to be a C8-C16 APG surfactant with an average degree of polymerization between 1.3-1.5 (see Technical Data Sheet).
With regards to claim 10, Nekmard teaches the use of 0.01-10 wt% of glycol ether solvents in the composition (see [0120]).
With regards to claim 16, Nekmard teaches the optional use of 0.01-5 wt% of zwitterionic, amphoteric, cationic surfactants but they are not required (see [0120]). Hence, the composition need not comprise of these other surfactants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8-10 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights