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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 05/12/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
It is noted that the prior set of claims filed 05/06/2024 canceled claims 21-24. However, claims 21-24 (even though they were previously canceled) are missing from the instant claims filed on 05/12/2026. The instant claims are arguably non-responsive as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.121 because 1.121(c) requires each amendment document must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented and the status of every claim must be indicated (including “(Canceled)”). For purposes of compact prosecution and as a one-time courtesy (or else a first action on the merits of the pending, elected claims would have been significantly delayed by mailing of a non-responsive amendment), claims 21-24 are construed as “canceled” as they were in the amendment filed on 05/06/2024. Applicant is cautioned that future claim sets must also list claims 21-24 and indicate them as canceled or else the claims/response will be held nonresponsive.
The Drawings filed 10/03/2023 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statement filed 12/21/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite components as dissolved solutions (see (i) to a dissolved biopolymer solution, (ii) to a dissolved carbohydrate solution, and (iii) to a nonionic surfactant solution) that are present with water as a remainder of the composition (see (iv)), effectively a “solution-of-solutions” per se. Upon careful consideration under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the characterization of the claimed components (i) and (ii) being a dissolved biopolymer solution and a dissolved carbohydrate solution and (iii) being a surfactant solution, all as discrete additives (i.e., that the composition seemingly requires three discrete solutions (i) to (iii) but with remainder water (iv)) describe a process of preparing or working up the composition (i.e., that three discrete solutions are first formed or commercially obtained and then combined with additional water to obtain the composition) and are effectively product-by-process limitations. However, product-by-process claims/limitations are not limited to any recited/implied steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the product/composition. Here, the claim(s) merely require a finally obtained composition comprising (open to additional, non-recited components) a dissolved biopolymer with a corresponding amount of water/carrier/solvent that can/does total about 30-80 vol.% of the composition, a dissolved carbohydrate with a corresponding amount of water/carrier/solvent that can/does total about 10-20 vol.% of the composition, about a nonionic surfactant with a corresponding amount of water/carrier/solvent that can/does total about 0.02-0.25 vol.% of the composition, and the remainder, if present/required, additional water.
The claim(s) do not require literal discrete (or precursor) dissolved biopolymer and carbohydrate solutions. As discrete portions of component with water are not required, a composition comprising, for example, 1 vol.% dissolved biopolymer, 1 vol.% dissolved biopolymer, 0.1 vol.% nonionic surfactant, and 97.9 vol.% water reads on the claim because 29 vol.% of the composition water with the 1 vol.% of the dissolved biopolymer can be fairly construed to read on or be 30 vol.% of a dissolved biopolymer solution, 10 vol.% of the composition water with the 1 vol.% of the carbohydrate can be fairly construed to read on or be 11 vol.% of a dissolved carbohydrate solution, and the remainder 57.9 vol.% of the composition water (97.9 - 30 - 10) can be fairly construed to read on or be water that makes up a remaining volume to 100%. In other words, any water present in a prior art composition can read on the dissolved solutions (with a biopolymer, carbohydrate, and nonionic surfactant) and the remainder water components by double inclusion.
Note that the further limitations of claims 2 and 3 support the above interpretation that water (and other components, too) may read on other components by double inclusion. For example, claim 2 recites "wherein the dissolved biopolymer solution comprises about 5 to about 35% lignin by weight, about 5 to about 20% sugars by weight, and about 45 to about 90% water by weight." Dosing this biopolymer solution as the ~30-80% dissolved biopolymer solution by volume results in the composition containing (depending on the 30-80% by volume) about 1.5-28 wt.% or vol.% of actual biopolymer (lignin), about 1.5-16 wt.% or vol.% of sugar (that even fairly reads on the carbohydrate of the dissolved carbohydrate solution itself, as sugars are a carbohydrate), and 13.5-72 wt.% or vol.% of water requiring additional water and/or unrecited components to sum to 100% (because the above three lignin, sugar, and water components are at most 80 vol% of the composition). Claims 7-10 are also similar in that the liquor and extract components serving as the dissolved biopolymer solution(s) are implied to contain a carrier such as water and are not necessarily, for example 64 vol%, of only a biopolymer (the 64 vol% includes a biopolymer with a carrier/solvent).
The claims also recite limitations that the composition is "effectively free of magnesium chloride and calcium chloride" (claim 1) and "effectively free of oil based or hydrophobic content" (claim 6). Applicant's definition of the term "effectively free" that "To be 'effectively free' of a substance is meant that the composition ... may include the substance, but only in an amount that does not materially alter the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition" set forth in [0033] of the original specification is noted. This means that the claimed composition does not necessarily exclude the recited components so long as their inclusion does not materially alter the basic and novel characteristics of the composition. Careful review of the original specification reveals the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention/composition is a dust control (i.e., dust suppressant and/or dust binding) composition with a minimal environmental impact (see [0002]-[0003]). It is especially noted [0002] implies the undesired environmental impacts occur only when there is "a high usage of either salts or oil", which further indicates some amount of the "effectively free" components may indeed be present in the composition. Therefore, the recited magnesium/calcium chloride salts and oil/hydrophobic components are actually permitted in the claimed composition so long as the composition has dust control properties and a minimal environmental impact as the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention are not materially altered. If this is not Applicant's intended claim interpretation then further amendment and narrowing the claims is suggested.
The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" among claims 7-10 is also noted. The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. Therefore, in a similar fashion to the "effectively free" limitations, the compositions "consisting essentially of" their recited components are open to additional, non-recited components so long as the composition has dust control properties and a minimal environmental impact as the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention are not materially altered. See MPEP 2111.03, III.
The claims also recite limitations regarding the source of lignin in the dissolved biopolymer solution (see, e.g., "wherein the lignin comprises one or more of: a wheat straw-derived lignin, sugarcane/bagasse-derived lignin," in claim 5), which constitute additional product-by-process limitations. Again, product-by-process limitations are not limited to the recited steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the product/component/composition. Here, the product-by-process limitations describing the source of lignin(s) be derived from a certain type of straw or plant result in no structural different than what the component actually is – lignin. Accordingly, the limitations that the lignin is derived from wheat straw, sugarcane, or bagasse is extended little patentable weight.
The above is similarly true for the liquors and extract of claims 7-10 that the dissolved biopolymer solution is wheat straw liquor or sugarcane/bagasse extract, which describe the sources of the dissolved biopolymer solutions rather than what is precisely contained in the dissolved biopolymer solutions. These limitations are extremely broad and are broadly construed as requiring any biopolymer capable of being derived from wheat straws, sugarcane, or bagasse (e.g., lignin and its derivatives, cellulose and its derivatives, hemicellulose and its derivatives, a polysaccharide, etc.) optionally with other components, solvents, diluents, etc.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomer et al. (US 2015/0115197 A1) optionally in view of Lewis et al. (US 2019/0161678 A1).
As to claim 1, Bloomer teaches a dust suppression composition comprising a crusting agent, a dust suppression agent, and a carrier (abstract), such as 6-90 wt.% of the crusting agent, 10-90 wt.% of the dust suppression agent, and 10-75 wt.% of the carrier (para. 0011). The crusting agent may include, among others, raw sugar, processed sugar, and corn sugar molasses (para. 0012); sugars like these are carbohydrates. The dust suppression agent may include, among others, a lignosulfonate (para. 0005 and 0021); lignosulfonate is a biopolymer. The carrier is typically water (para. 0005 and 0020). The dust suppression agent may further include a nonionic surfactant (para. 0023).
While Bloomer fail to meet the claimed composition under the meaning of anticipation, the cited teachings of Bloomer nevertheless meet the claimed composition under a prima facie case of obviousness. The crusting agent may clearly be selected to contain a biopolymer (e.g., lignin), and the dust suppression agent may clearly be selected contain a carbohydrate (various types of sugars). The reference additionally motivates provision of a nonionic surfactant and ultimately forms an aqueous solution of all the components in water.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select and provide lignin and sugar(s) with a nonionic surfactant in water to obtain a dust suppression composition from the cited teachings of Bloomer with a reasonable expectation of success. The cited relative concentration of solutions are broadly met by the disclosed ranges of the reference. For the detailed double inclusion-type reasons of record set forth in the above claim interpretation section, 6-90 wt.% of lignin as the crusting agent, 10-90 wt.% of sugar(s) as dust suppression agent, and 10-75 wt.% of water as the carrier reads on, meets, overlaps, and/or otherwise encompasses the claimed 30-80 vol.% dissolved biopolymer solution, about 10-20 vol.% dissolved carbohydrate solution, and remainder water. Of course, the balance/remainder of Bloomer’s composition is obviously (or can be) water. Additionally, provision of an optimal amount of the nonionic surfactant would have been obvious to (and within the purview of) a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to adjust the dispersing, emulsifying, and/or surface active properties of the composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the event Bloomer is found or regarded to fail to sufficiently teach or meet the claimed nonionic surfactant solution concentration of about 0.02-0.25 vol% alone, Lewis et al. is cited as an optional secondary reference as to evidence of typical nonionic surfactant concentrations in dust suppressant/control compositions. In their dust suppressant composition (see, e.g., abstract), Lewis et al. teach nonionic surfactants (see para. 0028 & 0074 listing ethoxylated alcohol, a nonionic surfactant) are typically present in concentrations of 0.1-10 wt.% (para. 0048 & 0074). Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the workable amount of (nonionic) surfactant taught by Lewis et al., which broadly overlaps the claimed range, to Bloomer in order to obtain a dust suppression composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bloomer and Bloomer in view of Lewis et al. meet the claimed limitation that the composition is effectively free of magnesium chloride and calcium chloride. While the limitation is not as limited as might be apparent (some magnesium chloride and/or calcium chloride is permitted, Id., in the above claim interpretation section), Bloomer is wholly silent to providing any such component into their composition and Lewis et al. is merely relied upon for knowledge of common nonionic surfactant concentrations in dust suppressant compositions that does not impart any such alkaline earth metal chloride salt to Bloomer.
As to claims 2 and 3, as thoroughly discussed in the claim interpretation section above, these claims are essentially drawn to reciting precursor solutions that are provided to obtain the final composition of claim 1 (claim 1 is a “solution-of-solutions”). Bloomer effectively teach/suggest a final composition comprising 6-90 wt.% of lignin as a crusting agent, 10-90 wt.% of sugar(s) as a dust suppression agent, and 10-75 wt.% of water as a carrier (Id.), which reads on and meets the product-by-process/solution-of-solutions limitations of claims 2 and 3. Product-by-process limitations are not limited to the recited steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the final product/composition. Here, a partial portion of the 6-90 wt.% of lignin, 10-90 wt.% sugar(s), and 10-75 wt.% of water of Bloomer’s final composition reads on the precursor/partial 5-35 wt.% lignin, 5-20 wt.% sugar(s), and 45-95 wt.% water intermediate composition.
As to claim 4, Bloomer teaches providing raw and/or processed sugar as the dust suppression agent (Id.), which reads on the claimed dissolved carbohydrate solution comprising dissolved monosaccharide. Bloomer alternatively teach providing corn sugar molasses as the dust suppression agent (Id.), which reads on the claimed dissolved carbohydrate solution comprising a corn syrup solution.
As to claim 5, Bloomer teaches providing lignosulfonate as the crusting agent (Id.), which reads on the claimed dissolved biopolymer solution comprising lignin comprising a lignin sulfonate.
As to claim 6, Bloomer and Bloomer in view of Lewis et al. meet the claimed limitation that the composition is effectively free of oil based or hydrophobic content. While the limitation is not as limited as might be apparent (some oil based or hydrophobic content is permitted, Id., in the above claim interpretation section), Bloomer is wholly silent to providing any such component into their composition and Lewis et al. is merely relied upon for knowledge of common nonionic surfactant concentrations in dust suppressant compositions that does not impart any such oil based or hydrophobic compound/component to Bloomer. Lewis et al. further teach away from providing oils similarly due to environmental reasons (para. 0007).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2019/0161678 A1) in view of Wynne et al. (WO 2005/021674 A1).
As to claim 1, Lewis et al. teach a solvent borne dust suppressant composition comprising a lignin-carbohydrate optionally with a surfactant (abstract). The lignin-carbohydrate mixture includes a physical blend of lignin and a carbohydrate (para. 0012); lignin reads on the claimed biopolymer, and carbohydrate reads on the claimed carbohydrate. The surfactant may be ethoxylated alcohol (para. 0028 & 0074), which is a nonionic surfactant. The surfactant is typically present in concentrations of 0.1-10 wt.% (para. 0048 & 0074), which overlaps, meets, and/or otherwise encompasses the claimed concentration of nonionic surfactant.
Lewis et al. teach the content of their composition in terms of solid weight percentages (see, e.g., para. 0016-0019 and Id.). While this effectively teach relative amounts of the solid components, Lewis et al. fail to teach the claimed relative volume percentages of a solution-of-solutions as claimed. However, Lewis et al.’s composition is ultimately solvent borne via provision and dilatation of a predominantly aqueous/water-based solvent such that the composition must be rendered sprayable (para. 0072 and 0086). With this in mind, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other references teaching sprayable dust control compositions for typical concentrations of similar components and dilution rates to obtain a sprayable dust control/suppressant composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Wynne et al. is similarly drawn to a sprayable dust abatement and erosion prevention composition comprising water, sugar (i.e., carbohydrate), starch/polysaccharide (i.e., biopolymer), and surfactant (abstract, p.5 lines 8-10, and claim 19). Wynne et al. teach the composition comprises about 1-70 wt.% sugar, 0-70 wt.% polysaccharide, 0-30 wt.% surfactant, and 20-99 wt.% water (p.3 lines 26-29), which, in view of the foregoing, one of person of ordinary skill in the art would regard as sufficient final concentrations to obtain a sprayable dust control/suppressant composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the final diluted general concentrations taught by Wynne et al. to Lewis et al.’s composition (given in terms of only relative initial, pre-diluted solids content except for the final 0.1-10 wt.% surfactant range) in order to obtain a sprayable dust control/suppressant composition with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally note that sugars are carbohydrates and, not only does Wynne et al.’s sugar component effectively match and correspond Lewis et al.’s carbohydrate component for determining effective concentrations of the component(s) in a solution or diluted composition, it would indeed be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Wynne et al.’s sugar(s) as Lewis et al.’s carbohydrate(s) with a reasonable expectation of success.
The cited relative concentration of solutions are broadly met by the disclosed teachings of the combination of references. For the detailed double inclusion-type reasons of record set forth in the above claim interpretation section, up to 70 wt.% polysaccharide/lignin, 1-70 wt.% sugar/carbohydrate, 0.1-10 wt.% nonionic surfactant, and 20-99 wt.%, i.e., remainder, water/solvent reads on, meets, overlaps, and/or otherwise encompasses the claimed 30-80 vol.% dissolved biopolymer solution, about 10-20 vol.% dissolved carbohydrate solution, and remainder water.
Lewis et al. and Lewis et al. in view of Wynne et al. meet the claimed limitation that the composition is effectively free of magnesium chloride and calcium chloride. While the limitation is not as limited as might be apparent (some magnesium chloride and/or calcium chloride is permitted, Id., in the above claim interpretation section), Lewis et al.’s composition does not necessarily require or incorporate magnesium chloride and/or calcium chloride. Notably, non-magnesium/calcium chloride salts are envisaged for provision alternative to magnesium chloride and/or calcium chloride (para. 0047), the salt may be present in a very small amount reading on the broad non-entirely exclusive “effectively free of” terminology (para. 0039), and/or Lewis et al. teach replacing the inorganic salt with various organic salts or even alternative organic alcohol compounds that certainly read on a composition effectively free of (including outright free of) magnesium chloride and calcium chloride (para. 0047). Also, Wynne et al. is wholly silent to providing any such component into their composition.
As to claims 2 and 3, as thoroughly discussed in the claim interpretation section above, these claims are essentially drawn to reciting precursor solutions that are provided to obtain the final composition of claim 1 (claim 1 is a “solution-of-solutions”). The combination of references effectively teach/suggest a final composition comprising up to 70 wt.% lignin, 1-70 wt.% carbohydrate/sugar(s), 0.1-10 wt.% nonionic surfactant, and 20-99 wt.%, i.e., remainder, water/solvent (Id.), which reads on and meets the product-by-process/solution-of-solutions limitations of claims 2 and 3. Product-by-process limitations are not limited to the recited steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the final product/composition. Here, a partial portion of up to 70 wt.% lignin, 1-70 wt.% sugar(s), 0.1-10 wt.% nonionic surfactant, and 20-99 wt.%, i.e., remainder, water/solvent of the combined references’ final composition reads on the precursor/partial 5-35 wt.% lignin, 5-20 wt.% sugar(s), and 45-95 wt.% water intermediate composition.
As to claim 4, the combination of references meets the claimed limitation where the carbohydrate component of the dissolved carbohydrate solution (ultimately in the final solution-of-solutions) comprises a corn syrup solution because Wynne et al.’s sugar (obviously provided as Lewis et al.’s carbohydrate component, Id.) may be selected a corn syrup (claim 2). Alternatively, Wynne et al. also teach their sugar may comprise monosaccharides in general, too (p.4 lines 23-27).
As to claim 5, Lewis et al. teach the biopolymer component of the dissolved biopolymer solution (ultimately in the final solution-of-solutions) comprises lignin (Id.), which reads on and meets the claimed limitations. The remaining limitations that the lignin is derived from a certain type of plants are product-by-process limitations extended little patentable weight (Id.). However, note that Lewis et al. does indeed teach obtaining their lignin from wheat straw and sugarcane bagasse (para. 0062).
As to claim 6, Lewis et al. and Lewis et al. in view of Wynne et al. meet the claimed limitation that the composition is effectively free of oil based or hydrophobic content. While the limitation is not as limited as might be apparent (some oil based or hydrophobic content is permitted, Id., in the above claim interpretation section), Lewis et al. is wholly silent to providing any such component into their composition and Wynne et al. is merely relied upon for knowledge of common biopolymer, sugar/carbohydrate, and water concentrations in dust suppressant compositions, as well as chemical identities of common sugar/carbohydrate components for the same, that does not impart any such oil based or hydrophobic compound/component to Lewis et al. Lewis et al. further teach away from providing oils similarly due to environmental reasons (para. 0007).
As to claims 7-10, as thoroughly discussed in the claim interpretation section above, these claims are essentially drawn to reciting precursor solutions that are provided to obtain the final composition of claim 1 (claim 1 is a “solution-of-solutions”). Also note the rationale of claim 5 that Lewis et al. teach the biopolymer component of the dissolved biopolymer solution (ultimately in the final solution-of-solutions) comprises lignin (Id.), which reads on and meets the claimed limitations, and the remaining limitations that the biopolymer solution is derived from a certain type of plants are product-by-process limitations extended little patentable weight (Id.). However, note that Lewis et al. does indeed teach obtaining their lignin from wheat straw and sugarcane bagasse (para. 0062), meaning the lignin is indeed a wheat straw or sugarcane/bagasse extract and any dispersion/solution thereof is a liquor or extract. Also note the rationale of claim 5 that the combination of references meets the claimed limitation where the carbohydrate component of the dissolved carbohydrate solution (ultimately in the final solution-of-solutions) comprises a corn syrup solution because Wynne et al.’s sugar (obviously provided as Lewis et al.’s carbohydrate component, Id.) may be selected a corn syrup (claim 2).
The combination of references effectively teach/suggest a final composition comprising up to 70 wt.% lignin (including wheat straw lignin and/or sugarcane bagasse lignin), 1-70 wt.% carbohydrate/sugar(s) (including corn syrup), 0.1-10 wt.% nonionic surfactant, and 20-99 wt.%, i.e., remainder, water/solvent (Id.), which reads on and meets the product-by-process/solution-of-solutions limitations of claims 7-10. Product-by-process limitations are not limited to the recited steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the final product/composition. Here, a partial portion of up to 70 wt.% lignin (solids component(s) of the recited liquor/extract), 1-70 wt.% corn syrup, 0.1-10 wt.% nonionic surfactant, and 20-99 wt.%, i.e., remainder, water/solvent of the combined references’ final composition reads on the precursor partial about 64 vol.% (or about 40 vol.%) wheat straw liquor or sugarcane/bagasse extract, about 10 vol.% (or about 16 vol.%) corn syrup, about 0.02 vol.% (or about 0.005 vol.%), and remainder water intermediate compositions/components.
In the event it is disputed Lewis et al.’s literal range of surfactant (0.1-10 wt.%, Id.) does not meet or overlap the claimed values of surfactant, it is noted Lewis et al.’s range is merely close to the claimed values such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. Additionally, Lewis et al.’s surfactant component is optional (Id. per the abstract) such that values between zero and the disclosed preferred range (i.e., between the case where the solvent is not present per its optionality and the case where the solvent is present, e.g., greater than zero and less than 0.1 wt.%) are obviously encompassed by the reference, absent a showing of unexpected results/criticality of the precisely claimed values.
The combination of references also meets the “consisting essentially of” language of these claims as both references are drawn to environmentally friendly dust suppressant/control components that certainly do not affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention in any reasonably apparent aspect.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Bytnar et al. (US 7,157,021 B2) teach a composition for dust and erosion control comprising a dissolved sugar “in combination with a salt or lignin, or combinations thereof” (abstract). This discloses the composition comprises a dissolved sugar with lignin and without any salt as “with a salt or lignin, or combinations thereof” clearly indicates the salt is in the alternative from the lignin and therefore entirely optional. The sugars may be a corn sugar such as corn syrup (col. 5 lines 45-62 and col. 8 lines 6-18). The sugar, particularly the corn syrup, may be diluted with water (col. 8 lines 19-28) and the composition is nevertheless aqueous (col. 3 lines 1-13), denoting the additional presence of water. However, Bytnar et al. fail to teach or suggest the additional presence of a nonionic surfactant, let alone any surfactant, as claimed such that the prior art references relied upon in the above rejections are presently regarded as closer prior art.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights