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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 3/27/2026.
Claims 1, 5-16, 18-25 are pending. Claims 11-16, 18-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (CN103602990A) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (CN103602990A) in view of Menke et al (US4,134,959) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-8 of copending Application No. 18/264273 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 5, 7-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo et al. (US 6,106,738)
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7-10, Woo discloses a composition comprises 1-1.2% wt. cyclodextrin derivative (HPBCD or RAMEB – claimed supramolecular host/guest chemical) , 0.08-0.4 wt% polyacrylic acid (claimed scale inhibitor), pH buffer HCl, and water (examples LII-LVI). Woo is silent regarding the supramolecular host/guest chemical configured to engaged in host-guest chemistry with the scale inhibitor. However, given that compositions claimed and prior arts contain same supramolecular host/guest chemical and scale inhibitor, the compositions must have the same properties. The law held that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 25, Woo discloses the composition comprises a mineral (silicate/aluminate zeolites, col 23, ln 65-67).
The reference specifically or inherently meets each of the claimed limitations. The reference is anticipatory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 6,106,738).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 10, Woo discloses a scale inhibitor composition as set forth above. Woo discloses the water-soluble polymer polyacrylic acid is used to a level of from about 0.001% to about 3% by weight of the usage composition (col 21, ln 1-35) and cyclodextrin used is about 50% to about 6000%, by weight of the concentrated composition of water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the water-soluble polymer polyacrylic acid, cyclodextrin, and water by routine experimentation to provide additional odor control benefits to the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights