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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/28/2023 and 08/04/2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group 1 (claims 1-3) without traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-3 are under examination in this Office Action.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et. al (US20170335253A1) hereinafter Man further in view of Linder et. al (US20200255767A1) hereinafter Linder.
With regards to claim 1, Man teaches a sprayable alkaline cleaning composition comprising of a linear alcohol ethoxylate surfactant and a hydroxy substituted organic solvent such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, or isopropanol (see [0018]; see also [0134]). Methanol has a molecular weight of 32 as recited in the instant specification (see Table 2).
Man further teaches the use of C9-15, C9-11, C12-13 and C12-15 linear alcohol ethoxylates as surfactants (see [0118]). An alcohol ethoxylate will necessarily comprise of an oxyalkylene group having 2 carbon atoms. Because Man teaches the R1 group comprising 9-15 carbon atom branched alkyl group, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
In Table 3, Man teaches an example composition to comprise of 8 wt% solvent and 2 wt% C9-11 alcohol ethoxylate (see [0175]). Man also teaches the pH of the alkaline cleaning composition generally to be between from about 6 to 14, preferably from about 12 to about 13.5 (see [0086]).
Man does not explicitly recite the average addition mole number of the oxyalkyene group to be 2-15 in the alcohol ethoxylate. However, Linder teaches a high foaming liquid alkaline cleaner concentrate to comprise of 0.1-10 wt% of a surfactant further comprising primary and secondary alcohol ethoxylates (which have 2 carbon atom oxyalkylene groups) with 2-15 mole number of oxyalkylene group (see claim 1). Linder also teaches the use of a C-9-11 alcohol ethoxylate having 4 moles of ethoxylation, a C8 alcohol ethoxylate having 4 moles of ethoxylation, a C9-11 alcohol ethoxylate having 2.5 moles of ethoxylation, and a C9-11 alcohol ethoxylate having 5 moles of ethoxylation (see [0021]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the C9-11 alcohol ethoxylate in Man with that of Linder for the benefit of more efficient wetting and emulsification (see [0002]-[0003]).
With regards to claims 2-3, Man teaches the use of corrosion inhibitors in the alkaline cleaner concentrate such as sodium benzotriazole (see [0028]). As recited in the instant specification, benzotriazole is a compound in in which the R2 in Formula 2 is H (see [0067]). The total active amount of the one or more suitable corrosion inhibitors is from about 1.0 to about 9 wt.%, desirably from about 3 to about 8 wt.%, and preferably from about 3.5 to about 6 wt.% (see [0029]).
With respect to the 0.5-2 wt% antirust agent in the composition in claim 2, 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 (1-2 wt% antirust agent in the composition) 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights