DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed May 20, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5, 9-11 and 16. Claims 2, 4, 12 and 17-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-27 have been added. Currently, claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-16 and 21-27 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20260217.
The objection of claim 9 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “low molecular weight graft copolymers” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nijhof, WO 2019/215023, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amato et al, WO 2021/250599, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-11 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson, US 2017/0015945, is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-16 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-16 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “liquid concentrate”. This limitation renders the claims vague and indefinite, since newly amended claim 1 now requires “5-60% by weight of water”, and thus, is no longer a concentrate. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “graft copolymers”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since “graft copolymers” are inclusive of “sulfonated graft copolymers” and “graft dendrite copolymers”. The examiner suggests that “graft copolymers” should be deleted from instant claim 10. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for listing the Markush groups “didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride” “C12-C16 alkylbenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride” and “dodecyl dipropylene triamine” multiple times. Each group should only be listed once in claim 11. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “mixing components (a) and (b)”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since newly amended claim 1 now requires “component (c)” and optionally, “component (d)”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson, US 2017/0015945.
Larson, US 2017/0015945, discloses a hard surface cleaner composition comprising 0.5-20% by weight of a foaming surfactant, such as an amine oxide, 0.5-15% by weight of a solvent, 0.5-15% by weight of a foaming antagonist, such as a polymer or a quat, 0.5-40% by weight of a chelating agent, adjunct materials, such as pH adjusting agents, biocides and antimicrobials, and water to balance (see abstract and paragraphs 10-11). It is further taught by Larson that the composition is used to wash hard surfaces, such as floor, counter tops, and dishes (see paragraph 22), that the composition is also used to treat carpets and laundry (see paragraph 32), that the foaming surfactant may also include propionate surfactants, such as cocamidopropionate sodium salts and dipropionates of N-(2-carboxyethyl) N-coco alkyl derivatives (see paragraphs 49-50), that the composition contains nonionic surfactants, such as alcohol ethoxylates containing 10-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (see paragraphs 66-68), up to 10% by weight of a solvent (see paragraph 88), 1-60% by weight of water (see paragraph 100), that suitable foaming antagonists include alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides that contain 12-16 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (see paragraphs 89-97), that suitable pH adjusters include citric acid (see paragraph 99), that suitable chelating agents include EDTA, GLDA and MGDA (see paragraphs 101-103), that the composition contains 0.5-10% by weight of an anti-redeposition agent, such as carboxymethyl cellulose (see paragraph 164), and that the composition is made by mixing the components (see Example 1).
Although Larson generally discloses a composition containing propionate surfactants, such as cocamidopropionate sodium salts and dipropionates of N-(2-carboxyethyl) N-coco alkyl derivatives, the reference does not require such compositions containing this component with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a composition, as taught by Larson, which contained propionate surfactants, such as cocamidopropionate sodium salts and dipropionates of N-(2-carboxyethyl) N-coco alkyl derivatives, because such compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Larson. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a composition containing propionate surfactants, such as cocamidopropionate sodium salts and dipropionates of N-(2-carboxyethyl) N-coco alkyl derivatives is expressly suggested by the Larson disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Larson, US 2017/0015945, does not teach or suggest in general a hard surface cleaner composition comprising one or more aminocarboxylate chelates, one or more amphoteric surfactants of formula (I), 5-60% by weight of water, and less than 10% by weight of a solvent, as required by applicant in the newly amended claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Larson clearly discloses a hard surface cleaner composition comprising 0.5-20% by weight of a foaming surfactant, such as cocamidopropionate sodium salts and dipropionates of N-(2-carboxyethyl) N-coco alkyl derivatives (see paragraphs 10-11 and 49-50), 0.5-40% by weight of a chelating agent, such as EDTA, GLDA and MGDA (see paragraphs 10-11 and 101-103), ), up to 10% by weight of a solvent (see paragraph 88), and 1-60% by weight of water (see paragraph 100), per the requirements of the instant invention. Also, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights