The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 20, 2026.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending. Claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to nonelected inventions. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are currently amended.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 1-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (KR 2006067683 A, as evidenced by Ottens (WO 2015/194947) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR 2006067683 A), hereinafter “Hong” (whose English translation will be used for citation purposes), as evidenced by Ottens (WO 2015/194947), in view of Schultz et al. (US Pat. No. 6,506,715), hereinafter “Schultz.”
Regarding claim 1-5 and 7-9, Hong teaches a cleaning composition for removing iron rust and protein contaminant, in particular, effectively removes oxidized iron and solidified protein contaminants from the surface of metal or wheel of automobile (see English abstract). In Example 1, Hong teaches a cleaning composition comprising ammonium thioglycolate (a metal remover); a mixture of ethyl alcohol (an antimicrobial/preservative) and propylene glycol (cleaner enhancer and solvent, in particular, organic solvent); polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether surfactant (also a cleaner enhancer); alkyl polyglycoside surfactant (also a cleaner enhancer); EDTA-2Na (disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate, a chelating agent); among others; and balance, ultrapure distilled water (also a solvent) (see first half portion on page 4). Hong, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of an anionic surfactant or an amphoteric surfactant into the cleaning composition and wherein the composition changes color when applied to a surface to remove one or more metals as recited in claim 1, and wherein the anionic surfactant or amphoteric surfactant comprises metal olefin sulfonate or betaine
as recited in claim 7.
As evidenced by Ottens, thiol compounds are known to convert rust, i.e., insoluble iron oxides, into soluble ferrous ions, resulting in a color change; following application of the thiol compound to a rusted surface, a color change from colorless to purple takes place and so the removal of rust can be visually followed; and the purple change may be due to the reaction of the thiol compound with ferrous oxides whereby the purple colored ferrothioglycolate ion, Fe(SCH2COO)22- is formed and the purple color is easily distinguishable from the typically brown or red iron oxide rust layer on iron containing surfaces (see page 1, line 30 to page 2, line 3).
Schultz, an analogous art, teaches an automotive wash and wax composition which comprises an anionic surfactant like alkali metal C10 to C14 alpha-olefin sulfonate and a cationic emulsifier like cocamidopropyl betaine (see col. 1, lines 58-65; col. 3, lines 43-49; col. 4, lines 1-6), wherein the anionic surfactant functions to clean the automotive surface of soil such as dirt and grease and the cationic emulsifier aids in binding the silicone film to the automotive exterior surface (see col. 2, lines 3-11).
Even though Hong does not explicitly recite that the composition, which comprises ammonium thioglycolate, changes color when applied to a surface to remove one or more metals like iron, as evidenced by Ottens, thiol compounds are known to convert rust, i.e., insoluble iron oxides, into soluble ferrous ions, resulting in a color change. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an anionic surfactant like alkali metal C10 to C14 alpha-olefin sulfonate and a cationic emulsifier like cocamidopropyl betaine into the cleaning composition of Hong as evidenced by Ottens because the anionic surfactant functions to clean the automotive surface of soil such as dirt and grease and the cationic emulsifier aids in binding the silicone film to the automotive exterior surface as taught by Schultz.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong, as evidenced by Ottens, in view of Schultz as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Maeyama et al. (US2012/0316097), hereinafter “Maeyama,” and Levitt (U.S. Pat. No. 8,617,317).
Regarding claim 10, Hong, as evidenced by Ottens, in view of Schultz teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Hong teaches a liquid cleaning composition comprising 0.01-10.00 wt% of thioglycolic acid or its salts like ammonium thioglycolate, 0.001-1.00 wt% chelating agent like EDTA-4Na (tetrasodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate), 0.10-5.00 wt% inorganic or organic alkalis, 1.00-5.00 wt% of surfactants like polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether and alkyl polyglycoside, 1.00-5.00 wt% of low molecular weight alcohols or glycols like propylene glycol, 0.10-5.00 wt% of low viscosity silicones, and balance ultrapure distilled water (see claim 1 and Example 1), wherein the ultrapure distilled water, by difference, is from about 69-97 wt%. Hong also teaches that the composition may additionally include dyes, pigments, or fragrances, etc., as needed (see page 2, last 3 lines). Schultz, as discussed above, teaches an automotive wash and wax composition (see col. 1, lines 58-65) which comprises from about 5 to about 40 weight percent of an anionic surfactant (see col. 3, lines 8-11) like alkali metal, i.e., sodium, C10 to C14 alpha-olefin sulfonate (see col. 3, lines 43-49) and from about 0.2 to about 0.9 weight, i.e., about 1 wt%, percent of a cationic emulsifier like cocamidopropyl betaine (see col. 3, line 63 to col. 4, line 6), wherein the anionic surfactant functions to clean the automotive surface of soil such as dirt and grease and the cationic emulsifier aids in binding the silicone film to the automotive exterior surface (see col. 2, lines 3-11).
Hong, as evidenced by Ottens, in view of Schultz, however, fails to disclose about 0.01-1.0 wt% benzisothiazolinone as a preservative, about 0.1-5.0 wt% tetrasodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate, about 5-25 wt% ammonium thioglycolate, about 5-15wt% diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, about 1-10 wt% cocamidopropyl betaine, about 1-10 wt% sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate and about 55-75 wt% water.
Maeyama, an analogous art, teaches a detergent composition for metal (see abstract) to eliminate the residual metal debris such as iron powder (see [0016]), wherein the detergent composition comprises a preservative like benzisothiazolinone in an amount from 0.01 to 0.3% by mass (see [0175]).
Levitt, an analogous art in cleaning hard surfaces like transportation vehicles (see col. 4, lines 7-9), teaches the equivalency of propylene glycol with diethylene glycol butyl ether (also known as diethylene glycol monobutyl ether) as lower alky glycols (see col. 7, lines 30-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated benzisothiazolinone, sodium C10 to C14 alpha-olefin sulfonate, and cocamidopropyl betaine in their optimum proportion because the benzisothiazolinone provides a preservative effect as taught by Maeyama, and the sodium C10 to C14 alpha-olefin sulfonate functions to clean the automotive surface of soil such as dirt and grease and the cocamidopropyl betaine aids in binding the silicone film to the automotive exterior surface as taught by Schultz.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the propylene glycol of Hong with diethylene glycol monobutyl ether because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Levitt is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one lower alky glycol for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
With regards to the respective proportions of the benzisothiazolinone, tetrasodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate, ammonium thioglycolate, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate and water, considering the teachings of Hong, Maeyama, and Schultz, as discussed above, 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 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).
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serobian et al. (US 2015/0368593), hereinafter “Serobian.”
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Serobian teaches cleaning compositions having improved vertical cling and are useful for cleaning vertical or inclined surfaces which effectively remove organic and inorganic soils from wheel, tire and automotive surfaces (see [0003]). The cleaning compositions contain a rheology modifier in an amount of about 0.1 weight percent to about 1 weight percent (i.e., a polysaccharide), an alkalinity source (e.g., chelating agent) in an amount of about 1 weight percent to about 8 weight percent, a surfactant (e.g., nonionic, anionic, cationic and/or amphoteric surfactant, which also reads on “cleaner enhancers”) in an amount of about 0.3 weight percent to about 5 weight percent, and water in an amount of about 80 weight percent to about 98 weight percent (see [0010]), which is a solvent and also reads on cleaner enhancer; and wherein the water is deionized waster (see [0024]). Preferred alkalinity source is ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) which may be used to aid in the removal of insoluble deposits of calcium and magnesium soaps and/or as a scouring agent (see [0059]), hence reads on “metal remover” and “catalyst.” Serobian, however, fails to specifically disclose the composition comprising a chelating agent like EDTA, the surfactant being anionic surfactant or amphoteric surfactant, and wherein the composition changes color when applied to a surface to remove one or more metals as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the composition comprising EDTA and anionic or amphoteric surfactant as the specific chelating agent and surfactant, respectively, because these are the preferred chelating agent and surfactants taught by Serobian.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the composition to change color when applied to the surface to remove one or more metals because similar ingredients have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Serobian further teaches that the composition may contain additional optional adjuncts like antimicrobial agents (see [0096]).
Regarding claim 7, Serobian further teaches that the anionic surfactant includes olefin sulfonates (see [0070]), and the amphoteric surfactant includes betaines (see [0078]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 8, Serobian further teaches that the cleaning composition comprises a small amount of solvent, i.e., organic solvent, one of which is diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (see [0093]-[0094]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 recites a composition which comprises by weight percent (wt %) of the total composition:
about 65.9 wt % of water or DI and/or RO water;
about 0.1 wt % of benzothiazolinone;
about 0.5 wt % of tetrasodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate;
about 13.5 wt % of ammonium thioglycolate about 60% in water;
about 10 wt % of diethylene glycol monobutyl ether;
about 5 wt % of cocamidopropyl betaine;
and about 5 wt % of sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate.
It is noted that the sum of the above ingredients is about 100 wt%.
The most relevant prior art is Hong, as evidenced by Ottens, in view of Schultz and further in view of Maeyama and Levitt whose teachings are discussed in claim 10 (see paragraph 8 above). Even presuming the benzisothiazolinone of Maeyama, the cocamidopropyl betaine and sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate of Schultz were incorporated into the composition of Hong as evidenced by Ottens, and the propylene glycol of Hong were substituted with diethylene glycol monobutyl ether as taught by Levitt, the glycol (i.e., 1.00-5.00 wt%) in the primary reference to Hong and the cocamidopropyl betaine (i.e., about 0.2 to about 0.9 weight percent) in Schultz are outside the scope of the present claim 11 which requires about 10 wt % of diethylene glycol monobutyl ether and about 5 wt % of cocamidopropyl betaine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Hong as evidenced by Ottens in view of Schultz, as they apply to the present claim 1, Applicant argues that Schultz is directed to an automotive wash and wax compositions and does not teach wheel cleaning compositions and does not address the removal of metal or rust from wheels of an automobile.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because the automative wash and wax composition of Schultz which is suitable for simultaneous washing and waxing a soiled exterior surface of a vehicle, as disclosed in the abstract, implies washing of the wheels of the vehicle as well.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 10 over Hong, as evidenced by Ottens, in view of Schultz, and further in view of Maeyama and Levitt, Applicant argues that the teachings of the references fail to render the feature of “one or more anionic surfactants or amphoteric surfactants” and that Levitt is directed to all-purpose cleaners and “[p]referably the compositions are free of anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants and/or co-solvents (Levitt, Abstract).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments for the reasons discussed in paragraph 8 above. Even though Levitt teaches that the compositions preferably are free of anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants and/or cosolvents” as disclosed in the abstract, this teaching does not necessarily disclose that the compositions are free of anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants because this is just a preferred embodiment. In col. 8, lines 5-7, Levitt also teaches: “In a further aspect, the compositions are free of anionic, cationic and/or amphoteric surfactants. Preferably, the compositions are free of cationic surfactants.” This teaching therefore does not necessarily exclude the anionic surfactant and/or the amphoteric surfactant from the composition.
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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
