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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (claims 1-19) without traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-19 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/04/2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iverson et. al (US20090048143A1) hereinafter Iverson.
Iverson teaches a cleaning composition for a hard surface. With regards to claim 1-3, and 10 Iverson teaches Formula A comprising 3.5 wt% lactic acid, 2.5 wt% Lutensol XL70 (liquid alkoxylated C10 Guerbet alcohol with 7EO nonionic surfactant), 2.0 wt% alkyl polyglucoside, 0.5 wt% C11-15 secondary ethoxylated alcohol with 12EO, 2.25 wt% dipropylene glycol mono-butyl ether, 1.25 wt% dipropylene glycol n-propyl ether (a total of 3.50 wt% glycol ethers), among others with a final pH of 2.65 (see [0050]). Formula A does not comprise an anionic surfactant. As the term “less than 3 wt% of anionic surfactant by weight of the cleaning composition” includes 0 as a lower limit [see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974)], the composition need not have any.
With regards to claims 4-5, the total wt% of the surfactant system is 5 wt% (2.5 wt% Lutensol XL70 + 2.0 wt% alkyl polyglucoside + 0.5 wt% C11-15 secondary ethoxylated alcohol).
With regards to claims 6-7, the alkyl polyglucoside comprises 2.0 wt% of the cleaning composition. With regards to claim 14-15, the ethoxylated alcohol surfactant comprises 3 wt% of the cleaning composition.
With regards to claim 16, Formula A does not comprise of an amphoteric, zwitterionic, cationic surfactant or combination thereof. As the term “less than 0.5 wt% by weight of the cleaning composition of an amphoteric, zwitterionic, cationic surfactant or combination thereof” includes 0 as a lower limit [see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974)], the composition need not have any. With regards to claims 17-19, lactic acid comprises 3.5 wt% of the composition, which is a known alpha hydroxy acid with a number average alkyl chain length of C6.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iverson (US20090048143A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 10, 14-19, as evidenced by Technical Data Sheet (Glucopan 425N).
With regards to claim 8-9, Iverson teaches Glucopan 425N to be an example of an alkyl polyglucoside surfactant suitable for use (see [0044]). As evidenced by the Technical Data Sheet for Glucopan 425N by BASF, it is a C8-C16 alkyl polyglucoside known in the art to have a number average degree of polymerization between 1.3-1.5.
Claims 1-9 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koontz et. al (WO2006136774A1) hereinafter Koontz.
With regards to claims 1-7 and 14-16, Koontz teaches an aqueous hard surface cleaning composition comprising 5 wt% citric acid, 5 wt% formic acid, 2 wt% Lutensol XL 79 (C10 Guerbet alcohol ethoxylate surfactant), and 1.5 wt% Glucopon 215 CS UP (C8-C10 alkyl polyglucoside surfactant) (see E14 Table 1-A; see also Table 2). Koontz teaches the pH of the composition to be 2.5 or less, preferably a pH in of at least 0.1 and not in excess of 2.5, more preferably are at a pH of 0.1-2.5, yet more preferably are at a pH of 0.2-2, and most preferably is at a pH of 0.25-1.5 with respect to claims 1-3 (see Lines 3-9, Page 5). E14 does not comprise of an anionic surfactant. As the term “less than 3 wt% of anionic surfactant by weight of the cleaning composition” includes 0 as a lower limit [see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974)], the composition need not have any. With regards to claims 4-5, the total surfactant system in the cleaning composition E14 is 3.5 wt% (2 wt% Lutensol XL 79 + 1.5 wt% Glucopon 215 CS UP). With regards to claim 16, composition E14 does not comprise of an amphoteric, zwitterionic, cationic surfactant or combination thereof. As the term “less than 0.5 wt% by weight of the cleaning composition of an amphoteric, zwitterionic, cationic surfactant or combination thereof” includes 0 as a lower limit [see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974)], the composition need not have any.
With regards to claims 8-9 Koontz teaches Glucopon 215 CS UP to be a C8-C10 alkyl polyglucoside surfactant and also have an average of from about 1 to about 2 glucose units per fatty alkyl polyglucoside molecule (see Table 2; see also Lines 15-17, Page 19). Hence the number average degree of polymerization is between 1-2.
With regards to claims 17-19, composition E14 comprises of 5 wt% citric acid which is known in the art to have an average alkyl chain length of C6 (see Table 2).
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.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koontz (WO2006136774A1) as applied to claims 1-9 and 14-19 above.
.
The teachings of Koontz are recited above. With regards to claim 10, Koontz teaches organic solvents such as alcohols, glycols, glycol ethers, and a combination thereof may be used in the composition (see Paragraph 5, Page 20).
With regards to claim 11, Koontz teaches the addition of co-surfactants (such as anionic surfactants) in amounts of less than 3 wt%, preferably 0.01-2 wt% to the composition (see Lines 3-6, Page 9; see also Lines 1-4, Page 20). With respect to the proportions of the composition comprising 0.01 to 1 wt% anionic surfactants, considering Koontz teaches preferably 0.01-2 wt% of a co-surfactant that may be anionic, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (0.01-1 wt% of an anionic surfactant) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claims 12-13, Koontz teaches Lutensol XL 79 to be a C10 alcohol ethoxylated surfactant with approximately 7 moles of ethoxylation (see Lines 4-5, Page 8). Koontz also teaches the ethoxylated alcohol surfactant to have a number average alkyl chain length of C6-C12 and have an average degree of ethoxylation ranging from 5 to 25 (see Lines 16-21, Page 11). However, Koontz fails to explicitly disclose a C4 to C8 ethoxylated alcohol surfactant with a number average degree of ethoxylation from 3-7 or a C6 ethoxylated alcohol surfactant with a number average degree of ethoxylation from 5-6. With respect to the a C4 to C8 ethoxylated alcohol surfactant with a number average degree of ethoxylation from 3-7 as recited in claim 12 and a C6 ethoxylated alcohol surfactant with a number average degree of ethoxylation from 5-6 as recited in claim 13, considering Koontz teaches the ethoxylated alcohol surfactant to have a number average alkyl chain length of C6-C12 and have an average degree of ethoxylation ranging from 5 to 25, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (a C4 to C8 ethoxylated alcohol surfactant with a number average degree of ethoxylation from 3-7 as recited in claim 12 and a C6 ethoxylated alcohol surfactant with a number average degree of ethoxylation from 5-6 as recited in claim 13) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iverson (US20090048143A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 10, 14-19 above.
With regards to claims 12, Iverson teaches the use of a nonionic alkoxylated alcohol surfactant preferably a C10-C15 ethoxylated alcohol having 6-8 ethylene oxide groups (see [0008]). Although Iverson does not explicitly teach C4-C8 ethoxylated alcohol, the teachings recited by Iverson are close to the ranges specified in the instant claim. If range of prior art and claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the range are close enough that one would not expect a difference in properties, In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Join et. al (EP3689324B1), hereinafter Join, teaches a shower gel composition comprising 20 wt % Plantacare PS 10 (which further comprises a mixture of Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), and Lauryl Glucoside), 1.4 wt % sodium chloride, 1.3 wt% citric acid monohydrate crystallin, 0.4 wt% SymDiol 68 (which further comprises a mixture of 1,2-hexanediol and caprylic glycol) (see Table 13). Lauryl glucoside1 is classified as an alkyl polyglucoside (APG) surfactant and recited in the instant specification (see Table 2, Page 23). SLES is an example of a an ethoxylated alcohol surfactant and is also recited in the instant specification (see Page 22). Join also teaches the surface-active substances to be anionic, non-ionic, cationic and/or amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactants, the proportion of which in the compositions is usually about 1 to 70, preferably 5 to 50 and in particular 10 to 30 wt.% (see [0070]).
Coope-Epstein et. al (US 20170044471), hereinafter Coope-Epstein, teaches a sample formulation in Formula 5 comprising 10 wt% alkyl poly glucoside, 2.5 wt% citric acid, 1.0 wt% coconut fatty acid, 8.0 wt% alcohol ethoxylate 7EO, 0.8 wt% triethanolamine among others with a pH between 7.4-8.0 (see Table 2, [0144]). Coope-Epstein also teaches a second surfactant that may be amphoteric, anionic, or another non-ionic surfactant (see [0016]).
Coulibaly (WO2024117961A1) teaches a surfactant composition for cleaning of food and beverage processing equipment and milking systems. With regard to claim 1, Coulibaly teaches a cleaning composition in Table 4 comprising 0.25-5 wt% surfactant blend, 2-45 wt% total alkaline source, 0.5-10 sodium gluconate liquid chelant, 0.5-10 wt% diethylenetriamine pentaacetate chelant, 0.25-4 wt% water softener, and water (see Page 9). The surfactant blend is taught to further comprise 95 wt% C6 alkyl poly glucoside (Nouryon AG 6206) and 5 wt% C6 amphoteric fluorosurfactant (Thetawet FS 8400), which is also an ethoxylated alcohol surfactant, in reference B8 (see Table 3, Pages 8-9). Coulibaly also teaches the cleaning composition may comprise 5-90 wt% of acid like citric acid, lactic acid, glycolic acid, succinic acid, formic acid, pyruvic acid, malic acid, methane sulfonic acid (see Lines 23-29, Page 3). Coulibaly teaches the pH of a diluted acid detergent composition may be less than 6, preferably between about 0 and 5, more preferably between about 1 and 4 (see lines 23-24, Page 4).
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
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761