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Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-6 and claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kellar (US 20120277140 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kellar (US 20120277140 A1) and Nechyporenko (US 20140303061 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kellar (US 20120277140 A1) and Wates (US 20130267453 A1) is withdrawn.
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), and in further view of Hill (CA 2821327 A1) and Wates (US 20130267453 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]).
However, Kellar fails to disclose a silicate.
Hill discloses a multipurpose cleaner composition comprising soluble silicate, an analogous art (see Abstract). Hill further discloses the composition may be used for cleaning concrete (see Abstract). Hill further teaches potassium silicate as potassium silicate leaves less of a visible residue upon drying and tends to reduce the potential for scratching certain sensitive or highly polished surfaces being cleaned (see [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the potassium silicate of Hill in the composition of Kellar for the purpose of leaving less of a visible residue upon drying reducing the potential for scratching certain sensitive or highly polished surfaces being cleaned, as disclosed by Hill.
Kellar further 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 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 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nechyporenko fails to disclose the composition as useful for cleaning concrete. Applicant further argues that the motivation to combine Kellar and Nechyporenko is not applicable because there is no suggestion in the current disclosure of storage in metal containers that are subject to corrosion. As Nechyporenko is no longer utilized as prior art, Applicant’s arguments with regard to Nechyporenko are moot.
Applicant further argues that Wates fails to disclose the composition as useful for cleaning concrete. Wates discloses cleaning hard surfaces. Concrete is a hard surface. Further, “a surface enhancement solution for concrete” is intended use. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2111.02 “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”. See Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Kellar and Wates as Wates fails to disclose cleaning concrete surfaces. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Wates discloses cleaning hard surfaces. Concrete is a hard surface. Further, Wates discloses nanosilicas in combination with two additional surfactants as providing excellent degreasing and low streaking (see [0004]). The composition of Kellar may comprise one or more nonionic surfactants (see [0058]).
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 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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights