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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are pending. Claim 8 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed November 18, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 July 21, 2025.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 8/27/25 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,418,368, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2,272,942.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘942 teaches a process of cleaning a hard surface with a composition according to the present invention. In a preferred embodiment, the process of cleaning a hard surface herein involves the use of the hard surface cleaning composition according to the present invention in liquid form. See para. 24. A preferred liquid hard surface cleaning composition herein is an aqueous, liquid hard surface cleaning composition and therefore, preferably comprises water more preferably in an amount of from 50% to 98%, even more preferably of from 75% to 97% and most preferably 80% to 97% by weight of the total composition. See para. 13. The compositions herein may comprise a nonionic, anionic, zwitterionic and amphoteric surfactant or mixtures thereof. Said surfactant is preferably present at a level of from 0.01% to 20% of composition herein. See para. 111. One class of non-ionic surfactant suitable for the present invention is amine oxide. Amine oxides, particularly those comprising from 10 carbon atoms to 16 carbon atoms in the hydrophobic tail. Additionally C10-16 amine oxides, especially C12-C14 amine oxides are excellent solubilizers of perfume. See para. 116. The hard surface cleaning compositions, preferably the liquid hard surface cleaning composition, of the present invention may comprise a solvent, or mixtures thereof as an optional ingredient. A suitable solvent is selected from the group consisting of: ethers and diethers having from 4 to 14 carbon atoms, preferably from 6 to 12 carbon atoms, and more preferably from 8 to 10 carbon atoms; glycols or alkoxylated glycols; alkoxylated aromatic alcohols; aromatic alcohols; alkoxylated aliphatic alcohols; aliphatic alcohols; Cg-C14 alkyl and cycloalkyl hydrocarbons and halohydrocarbons; C6-C16 glycol ethers; terpenes; and mixtures thereof. Suitable aliphatic alcohols to be used herein are according to the formula R-OH wherein R is a linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alkyl group of from 1 to 20 carbon atoms, preferably from 2 to 15 and more preferably from 5 to 12. With the proviso that said aliphatic branched alcohols is not a 2-alkyl alkanol as described herein above. Suitable aliphatic alcohols are methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol or mixtures thereof. Suitable terpenes to be used herein monocyclic terpenes, dicyclic terpenes and/or acyclic terpenes. Suitable terpenes are: D-limonene; pinene; pine oil; terpinene; terpene derivatives as menthol, terpineol, geraniol, thymol; and the citronella or citronellol types of ingredients. Typically, the hard surface cleaning composition herein may comprise up to 30%, preferably from 1% to 25%, more preferably from 1% to 20% and most preferably from 2% to 10% by weight of the total composition of said solvent or mixture thereof. See paras. 150-160. The hard surface cleaning compositions of the present invention may comprise a perfume or a mixture thereof as a highly preferred optional ingredient. Suitable perfumes for use herein include materials which provide an olfactory aesthetic benefit and/or cover any "chemical" odor that the product may have. The compositions herein may comprise a perfume or a mixture thereof, in amounts up to 5.0%, preferably in amounts of 0.01% to 2.0%, more preferably in amounts of 0.05% to 1.5%, even more preferably in amounts of 0.1% to 1.0%, by weight of the total composition. See para. 162-164.
‘942 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing water, a cleaning agent, an antifreeze agent, an aroma compound, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing water, a cleaning agent, an antifreeze agent, an aroma compound, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘942 suggest composition containing water, a cleaning agent, an antifreeze agent, an aroma compound, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3,418,368 in view of EP2,272,942.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘368 teaches an antimicrobial composition which does not reduce surface shine and does not leave visible residues on the surface, which is a hard surface cleaning composition. See Abstract. The compositions contain from 30 to 99.5% water. See para. 15. The hard surface cleaning composition can comprise nonionic surfactant, preferably present at a level of from 0.01% to 10%, or from 0.05% to 4%, preferably from 0.1% to 1.0% by weight of the composition of the composition. Suitable nonionic surfactants can be selected from alkoxylated nonionic surfactants, amine oxide surfactants, and mixtures thereof. See para. 41. Suitable amine oxide surfactants are amine oxides having the following formula: R1R2R3NO wherein R1 is an hydrocarbon chain comprising from 1 to 30 carbon atoms, preferably from 6 to 20, more preferably from 8 to 16 and wherein R2 and R3 are independently saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted, linear or branched hydrocarbon chains comprising from 1 to 4 carbon atoms, preferably from 1 to 3 carbon atoms, and more preferably are methyl groups. R, may be a saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted linear or branched hydrocarbon chain. Suitable amine oxides for use herein are for instance preferably C12-C14 dimethyl amine oxide. If present, the hard surface cleaning composition can comprise from 0.01% to 5.0% by weight of the total composition of said amine oxide surfactant, preferably from 0.1% to 2.0%, more preferably from 0.5% to 1.0%. See paras. 48-49. Additionally, further solvents may be used and can be selected from the group consisting of: aliphatic alcohols having from 1 to 6 carbon atoms, ethers and diethers having from 4 to 14 carbon atoms; glycol ether solvents including but not limited to such as ethylene glycol n-hexyl ether, propylene glycol n-butyl ether, and the like; alkoxylated aromatic alcohols; aromatic alcohols; alkoxylated aliphatic alcohols; aliphatic alcohols; C8-C14 alkyl and cycloalkyl hydrocarbons and halohydrocarbons; terpenes; and mixtures thereof. Ethers such as n-butoxypropanol ether are particularly preferred. When present, the further solvent can be present at a level of from 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%, or 0.2 wt% to 5 wt%, or 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%. Note that, ‘368 exemplify compositions containing 0.5% by weight of propylene glycol. See para. 88. Essential oils and actives thereof may also provide a desirable odor profile. Suitable essential oils include, but are not limited to, those obtained from thyme, lemongrass, citrus, lemons, oranges, anise, clove, aniseed, cinnamon, geranium, roses, mint, lavender, citronella, eucalyptus, peppermint, camphor, sandalwood, cedar, or mixtures thereof. Actives of essential oils include, but are not limited to, thymol (present, for example, in thyme), eugenol (present, for example, in cinnamon and clove), menthol (present, for example, in mint), geraniol (present, for example, in geranium and rose), etc. See para. 84.
‘368 does not teach the specific amount of an aroma compound or a composition containing water, a cleaning agent, an antifreeze agent, an aroma compound, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘942 is relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use 5% of an essential oil such as menthol, for example, in the composition taught by ‘368, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘942 teaches 5% of a perfume in similar composition further, ‘368 teaches the use of a variety of essential oils such as menthol in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing water, a cleaning agent, an antifreeze agent, an aroma compound, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘368 in view of ‘942 suggest acomposition containing water, a cleaning agent, an antifreeze agent, an aroma compound, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using EP2,272,942; or EP3,418,368 in view of EP2,272,942, Applicant states that while the rejections rely on obviousness as to the use of perfumes/essential oils and aroma for a hard surface cleaning composition, the cited references do not disclose, teach, suggest, or contemplate the function of providing aroma for introduction into a vehicle through the systems of the vehicle when the cleaning composition is used on the windshield of a vehicle. Additionally, Applicant states that but for improper hindsight in view of the present application, there is no reason whatsoever found in prior art to contemplate or address aroma being introduced into a vehicle via the vehicle heating/cooling system from the cleaning of the windshield of the vehicle.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of ‘942 or ‘368 in view of ‘942 would suggest compositions having the same aroma producing properties via the heating, cooling, and air conditioning system as recited by the instant claims because ‘942 or ‘368 in view of ‘942 teach compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of ‘942 or ‘368 in view of ‘942. While ‘942 or ‘368 do not specifically mention or discuss aroma being introduced into a vehicle via the vehicle heating/cooling system from the cleaning of the windshield of the vehicle, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. Note that, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention. In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP 2144. To render an invention obvious, the prior art does not have to address the same problem addressed by a patent applicant. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550, U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see also, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings of the references does not need to be the same as Applicant’s reason (i.e., to prevent a greasy feeling on items or hands). See e.g., In re Khan, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention."). See MPEP 2145(II.). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘942 or ‘368 in view of ‘942 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/February 16, 2026