Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/541,640

CLEANING COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF FOR STARCH AND FATS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Examiner
PAUL, SHREYA
Art Unit
1761
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ecolab Usa Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-65.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
12
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 1-10) without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.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 1-10 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final. Information Disclosure Statement Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/01/2024 and 01/05/2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPO form. 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foley et.al (WO2000046333A1) hereinafter Foley. With regard to claim 1-5 and 7, Foley teaches a liquid dishwashing detergent composition specifically formulated to target starch-based soils in kitchenware comprising amylase enzyme, surfactants including amphoteric amine oxide surfactants and ethylene oxide propylene oxide block co-polymer nonionic surfactants, weak acid salts such as citrate, and water (see line 25 Page 1; see also line 16 Page 8; see also line 28 Page 9; see also line 20 Page 7). The pH of this detergent composition is at least 8, preferably 9 (see line 14 Page 2). Foley also teaches the detergent composition to include diol or polymeric glycol solvents and the optional addition of the following to the composition: suds booster, soil release polymers, polymeric dispersants, polysaccharideπdes, abrasives, bactericides and other antimicrobials, tarnish inhibitors, builders, enzymes, dyes, buffers, antifungal or mildew control agents, insect repellents, perfumes, hydrotropes, thickeners, processing aids, brighteners, anti-corrosive aids, stabilizers antioxidants and chelants (see line 34 Page 13; see also lines 13-15 and lines 31-34 Page 14 and lines 1-2 page 15). 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 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et.al (WO2000046333A1) hereinafter Foley. With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Foley are taught above. Foley does not explicitly state the cleaning composition to comprise of a weak acid or weak base buffer. However, Foley teaches citric acid salt and diamine (a weak base buffer) in the liquid dishwashing composition (see line 28 Page 9; see also Table 1 Pages 16-17). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to comprise the buffer of the liquid dishwashing detergent with citric acid (weak acid) and diamine (weak base) salts to enhance effectiveness of the amylase enzyme on eliminating starch soils (see line 32-33 Page 6). With respect to optimization, it is not inventive to discover such regimens by routine experimentation when general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP §2144.05(11). With regards to claim 8-10, the teachings of Foley are taught above. In Example 3, Foley teaches a specific liquid dishwashing detergent compositions comprising 0.0005 wt % amylase, 4.0 wt % amine oxide surfactant and 2 wt % nonionic surfactants (totaling 6 wt% surfactant), a 0.5 wt % diamine (which functions as a buffer), and a balance with water (69.9995 wt %) with a final pH of 9 (see Table 1 Pages 16-17). Foley additionally teaches range of 0.0001-5 wt % of amylase enzyme in the composition (see Claim 1). Hence, the composition of claim 8 would have been obvious to one skilled in the prior art before the effective filing date based on the teachings of Foley. Conclusion 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 /ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month