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 the amendment filed on March 12, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-10 are pending. Claims 2 and 6-7 were cancelled. Claims 1, 4 and 10 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hokuto Oura et al. (JP 2017226778) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merritt et al. (US 2018/0148667) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wildemuth et al. (US 2019/0169537) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokuto Oura as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-10 above is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choy et al. (US Patent No. 4,695,394), hereinafter “Choy.”
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 8, Choy teaches, in Example #15, an aqueous cleanser formulation which comprises 41.50 wt% water, 1.25 wt% sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 50% solution), 1.91 wt% AMMONYX LO (i.e., dimethyldodecylamine oxide, see col. 13, lines 16-17, also known as lauryldimethylamine oxide), 2.55 wt% HOSTAPUR (i.e., a secondary alkyl sulfonate, see col. 16, lines 12-13), and 10.00 wt% sodium silicate solution (which reads on preservative), among others (see col. 21, line 63 to col. 22, line 24), wherein the cleanser formulation is used for cleaning hard surfaces (see col. 3, lines 33-34). Choy also teaches that the cleanser composition has a pH preferably above 7.0, more preferably above 8.0 or 9.0 and most preferably at between about 10.0 and 14.0 (see col. 9, lines 23-27). Choy, however, fails to specifically disclose the pH of the aqueous cleanser composition, say the composition in Example #15 above, in the range of 9 to 12 as recited in claim 1.
Considering that Choy teaches the cleanser composition having a pH above 7.0, more preferably above 8.0 and most preferably between about 10.0 and 14.0, 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 (i.e., pH 9-12) 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).
Regarding claims 9-10, even though Choy does not specifically disclose the aqueous cleanser formulation for use in removing an aqueous inkjet printing ink composition, rather for use in hard surfaces, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393. In addition, Choy need not disclose the aqueous inkjet printing ink composition which contains 3% to 12% by mass of a pigment and alkali soluble resin having an acid value of 100 to 200 mgKOH/g because the aqueous inkjet printing ink composition is only part of the intended use language, which is not a component of the cleaning liquid, hence is not given patentable weight.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildemuth et al. (US 2019/0169537), hereinafter “Wildemuth.”
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 8, Wildemuth teaches Composition D, a liquid base composition (see [0116]), which comprises 2.79 wt% linear alkyl benzene sulfonate, 0.83 wt% amine oxide (i.e., amphoteric surfactant), 0.15 wt% NaOH (a basic component), 1.11 wt% monoethanolamine, citric acid (a known preservative), water and minors as balance, among others (see Table 3, page 9). Wildemuth also teaches that the liquid base composition may be characterized by a basic pH, for example a pH of from about 7.5, or from about 8, or from about 9.0, or from about 10, to about 12; and the liquid basic composition may be characterized by a pH of from about 9 to about 12 (see [0041]). Wildemuth also teaches that suitable amine oxides may include alkyl dimethyl amine oxide characterized by the formula R1-N(R2)(R3)O wherein R1 is a C8-18 alkyl and R2 and R3 may be methyl as one of the selections, and the linear amine oxide surfactants in particular may include linear C10-C18 alkyl dimethyl amine oxides, preferably linear C12-C14 alkyl dimethyl amine oxides (see [0062]). Wildemuth, however, fails to specifically disclose that the amine oxide in Composition D above is lauryldimethylamine oxide, i.e., C12 dimethyl amine oxide, as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the amine oxide, say in Composition D above, to include lauryldimethylamine oxide, i.e., C12 dimethyl amine oxide, because this is one of the preferred amine oxides as disclosed in paragraph [0062].
Regarding claims 9-10, even though Wildemuth does not specifically disclose the aqueous composition for use in removing an aqueous inkjet printing ink composition, rather for use as laundry detergent composition (see paragraph [0021]), the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393. In addition, Wildemuth need not disclose the aqueous inkjet printing ink composition which contains 3% to 12% by mass of a pigment and alkali soluble resin having an acid value of 100 to 200 mgKOH/g because the aqueous inkjet printing ink composition is only part of the intended use language, which is not a component of the cleaning liquid, hence is not given patentable weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Wildemuth, as they apply to the present claims, Applicant argues that Wildemuth does not disclose or suggest lauryldimethylamine oxide, for example in Composition D; and that the Composition D contains components that are different from the Examples in the present Specification. Applicant also argues that Wildemuth does not disclose or suggest the cleaning liquid having a pH of 9 to 12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because even though Wildemuth recites a generic amine oxide in Composition D, Wildemuth also teaches that the preferred amine oxides are the linear C12-C14 alkyl dimethyl amine oxides as disclosed in paragraph [0062]). Hence, one of the preferred amine oxide is linear C12 alkyl dimethyl amine oxide which is known as lauryl dimethyl amine oxide. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized as the specific amine oxide in Composition D, C12 alkyl dimethyl amine oxide or lauryldimethylamine oxide, because this is one of the preferred amine oxides as disclosed by Wildemuth in paragraph [0062].
Even though Composition D of Wildemuth contains components other than those recited in claim 1, please note that the present claim 1 recites a “comprising” language and “comprising” leaves the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts, see Ex parte Davis et al., 80 USPQ 448 (PTO Ed. App. 1948). Also, the broad “comprising” and “containing” terminology do not exclude the presence of other ingredients in the composition, unlike the narrow “consisting of” language, see Swain v.Crittendon, 332 F 2d 820,141 USPQ 811 (CCPA 1964).
With respect to the pH of the cleaning solution, please note that Wildemuth teaches that the liquid base composition may be characterized by a basic pH; and the liquid basic composition may be characterized by a pH of from about 9 to about 12 as disclosed in paragraph [0041].
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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights