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 07/23/2026 and 04/28/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for being indefinite are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s new amended claims 1 and 7.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-9 as being anticipated by Lundberg (US20210095227A1) under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-16 as being obvious over Smith (EP2142627B1) under 35 U.S.C 103 are maintained for the reasons of record in the previous Office Action dated 03/11/2026.
The rejection of claim 2 as being obvious over Lundberg in view of Riehm (US20190284505A1) under 35 U.S.C 103 are maintained for the reasons of record in the previous Office Action dated 03/11/2026.
The rejection of claims 10 and 12 as being obvious over Smith in view of Hammel (US20190390143A1) under 35 U.S.C 103 are maintained the reasons of record in the previous Office Action dated 03/11/2026.
The Applicant’s amendments fail to overcome the obviousness rejections above over the general teachings of the references 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 1-16 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.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “alkalinity source comprising an alkali metal hydroxide comprising sodium hydroxide, and/or alkali metal carbonate comprising sodium carbonate reagents” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the alkalinity source must comprise of sodium hydroxide and/or sodium carbonate reagents exclusively, a mixture of sodium hydroxide and other alkali metal hydroxides and/or sodium carbonate and other alkali metal carbonates reagents. The phrase “sodium carbonate reagents comprising an alkylene carbonate” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if sodium carbonate reagent is present in the final composition or if it is converted into a different compound in the reaction process. Additionally it is unclear, when and how the sodium carbonate comprising alkylene carbonate reacts, what the products and by-products of this reaction are, and whether the alkylene carbonate is fully consumed or present in the final composition. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 will be interpreted as the alkalinity source must comprise of a sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate.
Claims 2-16 inherit this rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-14, have fully been considered.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-16 as being obvious over Smith (EP2142627B1) under 35 U.S.C 103 is maintained because the general teachings of Smith suggest the limitations of newly amended claim 1. As noted in the previous Office Action, Smith teaches use of sodium hydroxide, alkali metal carbonates, bonding agents, suitable surfactants such as Pluronic 24R2 (see [0062]-[0063]), among others in Solid Cleaning Composition 1 (see Table 3). The use of strong chelating agents and proteases are also taught (see [0013]; see also [0124]). Hence, the limitations of claim 1 are suggested by the general teaching of Smith.
The Applicant argues Smith fails to disclose a reagent capable of reacting with an alkaline source to form an alkoxide or the use of an alkoxide enhance enzyme stability (see Remarks, page 11). The examiner asserts the prior art does not need to teach a reagent capable of reacting with an alkaline source to form an alkoxide to meet the instant claim limitations because an alkoxide is not mentioned or suggested anywhere in claim 1. The examiner also asserts the use of an alkoxide to enhance enzyme stability is a “intended use” limitation that provides no structural element.
The Applicant argues Smith does not teach the use of an alkylene carbonate such as glycerin, ethylene, propylene, or butylene carbonate (see Remarks, page 11). Claim 1 as written at present can comprise of an alkali source comprising a sodium hydroxide or a sodium carbonate. Hence, the alkylene carbonate reagent of the alkaline carbonate is not required if the sodium hydroxide alkali source is present.
The rejection of claim 2 as being obvious over Lundberg in view of Riehm (US20190284505A1) under 35 U.S.C 103 is aslo maintained. The Applicant argues Lundberg and Riehm both fail to disclose reagents capable of forming an alkoxide (see Remarks, page 11). The examiner asserts the prior art does not need to teach a reagent capable of forming an alkoxide to meet the instant claim limitations because an alkoxide is not mentioned or suggested anywhere in claim 1. Lundberg teaches the addition of sodium hydroxide neutralizing agents (alkalinity source) to the composition (see [0086]), the use of chelating agents such as EDTA, MGDA, among others (see [0072]), a protease enzyme (see [0099]), and Pluronic 25R2 reverse EO.PO block polymer surfactant (see [0109]). The examiner asserts the deficiency of the optional second reverse EO/PO block copolymer surfactant in Lundberg is remedied by the teachings of Riehm for the reasons stated in the previous Office Action. Riehm teaches the use of a reverse EO/PO block polymer with 40% EO, Tetronic 90R4 (see [0254]; see also Table 6).
The rejection of claims 10 and 12 as being obvious over Smith in view of Hammel (US20190390143A1) under 35 U.S.C 103 is also maintained. The Applicant argues Smith does not teach the use of an alkylene carbonate such as glycerin, ethylene, propylene, or butylene carbonate or polyols comprising the alkalinity source (see Remarks, page 11). The alkylene carbonate is not required as the alkali source if sodium hydroxide is present. The examiner additionally asserts the deficiency of the alkylene carbonate in Smith is remedied by the teachings of Hammel for the reasons stated in the previous Office Action (see Non-Final Rejection, page 11). Hammel teaches the use of propylene carbonate and glycol polyols as a processing aid in an alkaline cleaning composition (see claim 20; see also [0062]).
The Applicant argues there is no teaching in Hammel that processing aids should be selected on the basis of reactivity with an alkali metal hydroxide to form an alkoxide (see Remarks, page 12). The examiner asserts Hammel does not need to explicitly disclose the formation of an alkoxide in relation to the propylene carbonate or glycol polyol since an alkoxide is not mentioned or suggested in claim 1. Smith’s general teachings in view of Hammel’s teaching of propylene carbonate, an alkylene carbonate, and glycol polyols as suitable processing aids in a alkaline composition suggest the inventive composition of the instant application.
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 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
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights