DETAILED ACTION
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 Group I, claims 1-17 and 19, in the reply filed on February 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 19, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner construes the limitation “wherein said composition is substantially free of any other surfactant source” that is recited in claim 1 to mean that “the composition contains less than 2.5% by weight of any other surfactant source”, as defined by applicant on page 8, lines 10-13, of the instant specification.
The examiner construes the limitation “wherein said composition is substantially free of bleach and any other nonionic surfactant” that is recited in claim 15 to mean that “the composition contains less than 2.5% by weight of bleach and any other nonionic surfactant”, as defined by applicant on page 8, lines 10-13, of the instant specification.
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 1-17 and 19 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 1-17 and 19 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In parts a)-e) of claim 1, each part of the claim recites a broad range of a component, followed by a narrow range of the component with the term “preferably”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Claims 2-17 and 19 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 2 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “characterized in that the adhesion promoter is present in amounts ranging from about 0.5% to about 3% by weight”, followed by the narrow recitation of “more preferably from about 1.0% to about 2% by weight”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 3 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “characterized in that the antioxidant is present in amounts ranging from about 0.1% to about 0.5% by weight”, followed by the narrow recitation of “more preferably in amount ranging from about 0.1% to about 0.3% by weight”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 6 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the ratio of the chelating agent, adhesion promoter and the antioxidant is in the ranges of 2.5 to 15 : 2.5 to 15 : 0.5 to 1.5”, followed by the narrow recitations of “preferably 9 to 11 : 7 to 9 : 0.8 to 1.2” and “more preferably 10 : 7.5 : 1”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 7 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 7 recites the broad/narrow recitations of “amines like lecithin”, “amino acids like glutamine”, and “esters like ascorbil palmitate”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name “Tinogard”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a product and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-5, 7-10, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulart et al, WO 2015/114306.
Goulart et al, WO 2015/114306, discloses an adhesive lavatory treatment composition (see abstract). It is further taught by Goulart et al that the adhesive lavatory treatment composition contains at least 35% by weight of one or more anionic surfactants, 0.01-10% by weight of a nonionic surfactant and/or amphoteric surfactant, 0.001-5% by weight of at least one polyvinyl pyrrolidone polymer as an adhesion promoter, at least 35% by weight of one or more inert filler materials, 0-5% by weight of water, and optional ingredients (see page 3, lines 6-15), that suitable anionic surfactants include C5-20 linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and C6-24 olefin sulfonates (see page 3, line 16-page 4, line 29), that suitable nonionic surfactants include polyoxyethylene ethers of long chain aliphatic alcohols (see page 5, lines 6-17), which are the preferred nonionic surfactants used in the instant invention as adhesion promoters (see page 17, line 6-page 18, line 17 of the instant specification), that suitable inert filler materials include sodium sulfate (see page 10, lines 15-28), that water is present in the composition in an amount of less than 3% by weight (see page 11, lines 5-20), that the composition contains citric acid (see page 12, lines 16-28), coloring agents (see page 12, line 29-page 13, line 2), and fragrances (see page 13, lines 3-11), wherein the composition is a solid (see page 14, lines 3-27), can be formed into any shape (see page 15, lines 11-18), and that the composition is wrapped in a polymer film (see page 19, line 4-page 20, line 27), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Example in Tables 1-3.
Although Goulart et al generally discloses an adhesive lavatory treatment composition containing citric acid (i.e., a chelating agent and an antioxidant), the reference does not require such adhesive lavatory treatment 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 an adhesive lavatory treatment composition, as taught by Goulart et al, which contained citric acid, because such adhesive lavatory treatment compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Goulart et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such an adhesive lavatory treatment composition containing citric acid is expressly suggested by the Goulart et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
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
March 11, 2026