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 of Group 1 (claims 1-15) without traverse in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-15 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
Claim Interpretation
In the Applicant’s Instant Specification, soft water is noted to have a pH between 6-7 (see [0042]). For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 12 will be interpreted as the cleaning composition having a pH between 6-7 after contact with water.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Claim 5 teaches the cleaning composition to be neutral or basic in pH which necessitates a pH of 7 or higher. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Claim 12 is interpreted as having a pH between 4-6, the pH of soft water, as noted in the instant specification (see [0042]). When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "wherein the cleaning composition is configured to interact with water having a first pH and wherein the cleaning composition is configured to increase the first pH of the water to a second pH" renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the cleaning composition itself comprises water or if the cleaning composition interacts with water separately upon contact or both. Additionally, it is known in the art that a cleaning composition and water would mix to form a third composition upon contact. Therefore, it is unclear whether the second pH refers to the pH of the resulting mixture composition or the pH of the water post contact with the composition. It is also unclear how the second pH of just the water would exist in a mixture. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 will be interpreted as the cleaning composition having a basic pH before contact with water and the limitation will be examined as an intended use limitation.
Claims 2-15 inherit this rejection.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "the first pH is more acidic” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the first pH is referring to water or the cleaning composition prior to contact. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 9 will be interpreted as the first pH of water is more acidic before contacting the cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "the first pH is between 4 to 6” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the first pH is referring to water or the cleaning composition prior to contact. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 9 will be interpreted as the first pH of water is between 4 to 6 before contacting the cleaning composition.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 as present is an intended use claim at present and fails to further limit the cleaning composition of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 is interpreted as the cleaning composition having a higher pH than water before contact. Hence, the cleaning composition is necessarily more basic than water. Claim 8 therefore fails to limit the cleaning composition of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 is interpreted as the cleaning composition having a higher pH than water before contact. Hence, the first pH of water is necessarily more acidic than the cleaning composition. Claim 9 therefore fails to limit the cleaning composition of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bean et. al (EP4134421A1) hereinafter Bean.
Bean teaches a detergent composition comprising of a detersive surfactant and a graft polymer (see Abstract). With regards to claim 1 and 14, Bean teaches a liquid laundry detergent formula comprising 18 wt% linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (anionic surfactant), 8.4 wt% C24 alkyl ethoxylate EO7 (nonionic surfactant), 2.9 wt% citric acid (chelating agent), 0.1 wt% EDDS (chelating agent), 4.7 wt% NaOH (pH adjuster) and water to balance, among others (see Composition 1, Table 1). The pH of the laundry detergent is taught to be “from 6.5 to 8.9, or from 7 to 8” (see [0364]) which is generally more basic that water. Bean also teaches the use of demineralized water (see [0121]). Please note, claim 1 contains intended use language because of the phrase “wherein the cleaning composition is applicable to a surface, wherein the cleaning composition is configured to interact with water having a first pH and wherein the cleaning composition is configured to increase the first pH of the water to a second pH.” A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With regards to claims 4-7 and 11-12, Bean generally teaches the pH of the composition to be adjusted between 4-14, most preferably from 7-9, using pH modifying ingredients such as NaOH (see [0121]). Adding NaOH to the liquid laundry detergent is also taught up to a pH range 7.5-9 (see [0261]).
With regards to claims 13 and 15, Bean teaches the use of a foam booster as an optional additional ingredient (see [0208]). Please note, claim 15 is an intended use claim because of the phrase “wherein the rain-activated cleaning composition is configured to be applied to an exterior surface of a vehicle, wherein the rain activated cleaning composition is configured to react with the rain to clean the exterior surface of the vehicle, and wherein the rain activated cleaning composition is configured to interact with rain to make the rain less acidic.” A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean (EP4134421A1).
The teachings of Bean are recited above. Bean teaches a liquid laundry detergent formula comprising of an anionic surfactant), a nonionic surfactant, citric acid chelating agent, EDDS chelating agent, and water to balance, among others (see Composition 1, Table 1). Bean also generally teaches the pH of the composition to be adjusted between 4-14 (see [0121]). With regards to claims 8, Bean does not explicitly disclose the pH of the cleaning composition to be more basic than water.
Bean teaches the cleaning composition to have a wide range of pHs including a liquid handwashing detergent composition with a pH of 9 (see Composition 5, Table 3). It is known in the art that water generally has a neutral pH of about 7. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date could reasonably expect an alkaline cleaning composition (with a pH great than 7) taught by Bean to be more basic than water (with a pH of about 7).
With regards to claim 9, Bean does not explicitly disclose the first pH of water to be more acidic than the second. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the pH of the resulting mixture between an alkaline cleaning composition (with a pH greater than 7) and water to be greater than 7. Hence, the first pH of the water would necessarily be more acidic than the second pH of the resulting composition.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean (EP4134421A1) in view of Nascimento (“How to properly wash your car using rainwater”, TopGear 2017).
The teachings of Bean are recited above. Bean teaches a liquid laundry detergent formula comprising of an anionic surfactant), a nonionic surfactant, citric acid chelating agent, EDDS chelating agent, and water to balance, among others (see Composition 1, Table 1). Bean also generally teaches the pH of the composition to be adjusted between 4-14 (see [0121]). With regards to claim 2, Bean does not teach the water to be rain.
Nascimento teaches a general method of washing a car during heavy rainfall using rainwater and car shampoo. Although the exact composition of the car shampoo is not disclosed in the article, car shampoos are known to comprise surfactants and chelating agents. The use of rainwater to clean vehicles is therefore known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use rain water as taught by Nascimento in Bean’s liquid detergent composition. This combination would lead to a cleaning composition that has the added benefit of being “an economical method” and environmentally friendly as taught by Nascimento.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kare11 News (“New Hope car wash uses rain, recycled water”, YouTube 2019) teaches the use of recycled rain water in Tony’s Express Car Wash in New Hope, Pennsylvania. Rain water is captured, filtered, and stored in tanks until it is needed during the car wash.
Yuzo et. al (JP 7213601 B1) teaches an animal cleaning composition comprising of calcium sodium phosphosilicate (a chelating agent) (see claim 1), an amphoteric surfactant (see claim 5), and optionally deep ocean water (see Page 5).
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
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights