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 without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on October 18th, 2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 5th, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 8 paragraph 3, “filling in pores in” should read “filling in pores”.
On page 9 paragraph 1, “include unsaturated” should read “include an unsaturated” or “include unsaturated carbon chains”.
On page 9 paragraph 3, “has aliphatic carbon chain” should read “has an aliphatic carbon chain”.
On page 9 paragraph 4, “Siloxane” should read “The siloxane”.
On page 10 paragraph 4, “Suitable siliconate” should read “A suitable siliconate”.
On page 14 paragraph 1, “alumina foil” should read “aluminum foil”.
On page 14 paragraph 1, “for overnight” should read “overnight”.
On page 16 paragraph 3, “of T3” should read “of a T3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms ECOSURF EH-6, TOMADOL 900, STEPOSOL MET-10U, SILCLEAN 3720 (25 wt%), AVANSE 100 acrylic emulsion (50 wt.%), XIAMETER OFS-0777 siliconate (20 wt.%), NALCOL 2327, PENTRA-CLEAN, and LUSTRE, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-6 and claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellar (US 20120277140 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Kellar discloses an aqueous surfactant system for cleaning surfaces (see Abstract) comprising at least one or more nonionic surfactants (see [0058]). Kellar further discloses alcohol ethoxylates and amides as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0060]). Kellar further teaches Tomadol 91-2.5 (an alcohol ethoxylate with an average carbon length of C9-C11 and an average ethoxylation of 2.7) and Tomadol 91-6 (an alcohol ethoxylate with an average carbon length of C9-C11 and an average ethoxylation of 6) as suitable alcohol ethoxylates (see [0123]).
With regard to claim 2, Kellar discloses that the composition may comprise an organic solvent (see [0093]). Kellar further discloses isopropyl alcohol as a suitable organic solvent (see [0093]).
With regard to claim 3, Kellar discloses a composition comprising 2.50wt% of isopropyl alcohol (see Formulation B). Kellar further discloses 0.1-50wt% of Tomadol 91-8, a nonionic surfactant (see [0189]). While Kellar fails to disclose a composition comprising an amide, Kellar discloses amides as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0060]). As both Tomadol 91-8 and an amide are nonionic surfactants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other.
With respect to the ratio of the third nonionic surfactant to solubilizing agent of 1:2 to 2:1 considering that Kellar teaches Tomadol 91-8, a nonionic surfactant in the range of 0.1-50wt% as disclosed in [0189] and isopropyl alcohol in the range of 2.50wt% as disclosed in [Formulation B], 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 (e.g. 2.5 wt% a nonionic surfactant: 2.5 wt% isopropyl alcohol or 1:1) 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 regard to claim 4, Kellar discloses a composition comprising 50-97wt% of water (see Composition 5). While Kellar fails to disclose at least 98 parts by weight of 100 parts by weight of the total solution of water, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
With regard to claim 5, Kellar discloses glycol ethers as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0060]).
With regard to claim 6, Kellar discloses EO/PO block copolymers as suitable nonionic surfactants (see [0060]).
With regard to claim 9, Kellar discloses 0.11wt% of Tomadol 91-2.5 and 0.11wt% of Tomadol 91-6 (see Formulation B). This corresponds to a ratio of first nonionic surfactant to second nonionic surfactant of 1:1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellar (US 20120277140 A1), and in further view of Nechyporenko (US 20140303061 A1).
With regard to claim 7, Kellar discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Kellar fails to disclose a silicate.
Nechyporenko discloses an aqueous-based cleaning composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Nechyporenko further discloses the cleaning composition may be utilized on household hard surfaces, such as glass, mirrors, ceramic, and porcelain (see [0011]). Nechyporenko further discloses corrosion inhibitors, such as silicates, as useful should the composition be stored in and/or dispensed from a metal container (see [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the silicates, as disclosed by Nechyporenko, in the cleaning composition, as disclosed by Kellar, for the purpose of inhibiting the corrosion of a metal container or dispenser, as disclosed by Nechyporenko.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellar (US 20120277140 A1), and in further view of Wates (US 20130267453 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Kellar discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Kellar fails to disclose nanosilica particles.
Wates discloses an aqueous composition (see Abstract) which may be a surfactant composition used in the cleaning of hard surfaces (see [0002]). Wates further defines “hard surfaces” as including stone, ceramics, wood, plastics, metals, glass, and any lacquered or painted such hard surface (see [0002]). Wates further teaches that the use of nanoparticles in cleaning formulations is well known (see [0004]). Wates further discloses nanosilicas in combination with two additional surfactants as providing excellent degreasing and low streaking (see [0004]). Wates further teaches alkoxylate surfactants as preferred nonionic surfactants (see [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the nanosilicas of Wates in the cleaning composition of Kellar as nanoparticles are known in the art, as disclosed by Wates. Further, Kellar discloses alcohol alkoxylates as suitable nonionic surfactants and Wates discloses nanosilicas in combination with two additional surfactants as providing excellent degreasing and low streaking.
Conclusion
Any inquinry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761