Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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 2, 13 and 15 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 2 and 13 recite the phrase “preferably”. The phrase “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Correction is required.
Claim 15 provides the use of solution of a composition but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3 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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emiru et al. (US 20200283701 A1).
Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) teaches a solid hard surface cleaning composition comprising alkali metal carbonate alkalinity source, aminocarboxylic acid chelants (builders) and anionic surfactants (additional surfactants) (see abstract), wherein the solid cleaning composition also comprises alcohol alkoxylates with a degree of ethoxylation (EO) of from 3 to 50 which is covered or overlapped with the claimed 6 EO in claims 1-4 (see page 10, paragraph, 0112), wherein the aminocarboxylic acid chelants (builders) include methylglycinediacetic acid (MGDA) as claimed in claim 5 (see page 5, paragraph, 0056), wherein the alkalinity source presents in the solid cleaning composition in the amount of 30% and 70% wt., (see page 5, paragraph, 0051), alcohol alkoxylate (nonionic surfactant) in the amount of from about 1 % wt., to about 20 % wt., (see page 11, paragraph, 0125) and chelants (builders) in the amount of about 0.01 to 50% by weight as claimed in claims 6 and 11 (see page 5, paragraph, 0060), wherein the solid cleaning composition also comprises polyacrylic acid polymers as claimed in claim 9 (see page 5, paragraph, 0059), wherein the solid cleaning composition in the form of pellets and tablet and having a mass of between 5 grams and 500 grams as claimed in claims 12 and 13 (see page 11, paragraphs, 0128-0130), wherein the solid cleaning composition also comprises sodium metasilicate as a correction inhibitor as claimed in claim 10 (see page 10, paragraph, 0118), wherein the solid composition maintain shelf stability in solid form at temperature up to at least 40O C for at least 8 weeks with a growth exponent of less than about 3% as claimed in claim 14 (see page 4, paragraph, 0048). Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) also teaches a method include a step of contacting the cleaning composition with water (diluent) to generate a use solution and thereafter contacting the use solution to the hard surface in need of cleaning as claimed in claims 15-19 (see 1, paragraph, 0012).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) by reciting a solid cleaning composition readily dissolves into water at a dissolution rate of about 1 gram over 1-10 minutes
However, Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) teaches a hard surface cleaning composition that quickly dissolve in water and form stable clear use solution (see pages 11-12, paragraph, 0132).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulae a solid cleaning composition that dissolves into water at a dissolution times similar to those claimed to arrive at the claimed invention, based on the teaching of Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) that refers to solid cleaning composition that quickly dissolve in water, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a solid cleaning composition to have a dissolution rate similar to those claimed, and would expect such a solid cleaning composition to have a cleaning property of a dissolution rate similar to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emiru et al. (US 20200283701 A1) in view of Wendy et al. (CN 111788287 A). English translation of the Patent No. (CN 111788287 A) is used in this Office action.
The disclosure of Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) as described above, does not teach a solid cleaning composition comprising polycarboxylic acids of citric acid or adipic acid as claimed in claims 7 and 8.
However, Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) clearly teaches a solid cleaning composition comprising a polycarboxylic acid (see claim 1).
Wendy et al. (CN’ 287 A) in analogous art of a cleaning formulation, teaches a solid cleaning composition comprising acid source include citric acid and adipic acid as claimed in claims 7 and 8 (see English translation, page 52, past paragraph).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Wendy et al. (CN’ 287 A), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the solid cleaning composition of Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) by incorporating citric acid and adipic acid as taught by Wendy et al. (CN’ 287 A) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious based on the teaching of Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1) that referred to use polycarboxylic acids in a solid cleaning composition (see claim 1). The secondary reference of Wendy et al. (CN’ 287 A), clearly teaches a solid cleaning composition comprising citric acid and adipic acid (see English translation, page 52, past paragraph), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of citric acid and adipic acid as taught by Wendy et al. (CN’ 287 A) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous solid cleaning composition taught by Emiru et al. (US’ 701 A1), absent unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761