DETAILED ACTION
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-28 in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/9/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the DONALDSON reference does not teach using a first surfactant component that is an EO/PO nonionic surfactant. The examiner maintains that DONALDSON uses a dispersing agent that acts as a surfactant with EO/PO groups in an aqueous carrier. A surfactant is functionally equivalent to a dispersant. Even if the polyolefin powder is what imparts the reduced tackiness, the dispersing agent still acts as a surfactant for that polyolefin powder. The dispersing agent prevents agglomeration of particles such that each individual particle can be fully surface coated/treated.
Applicant also argues that DONALDSON does not teach introducing molten “strands” into the aqueous composition. However, the reference does teach providing the polymer in molten form and cutting while in water as stated in the rejection. The examiner maintains that the molten strands are provided into the aqueous solution and cut to form pellets.
Applicant also argues the DONALDSON reference contains microfine polyolefin powder but not EO/PO copolymer. However, the examiner notes that the claim does not require that the EO/PO surfactant to be coated on the surface of the pellets. The material is only required to act as a surfactant while in solution which does not require permanently coating.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-16 and 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ARMSTRONG et al. (US 2022/0251474).
Regarding claims 1, 10-16 and 27,
ARMSTRONG teaches an exemplary adhesive remover [0155] that is a composition of water (aqueous carrier), Ecosurf EH-9 surfactant (nonionic surfactant with EO and PO and at least 5wt% PO), and Tergitol 15-S-15 (nonionic surfactant with only EO and no PO) in Table 2. The Ecosurf EH-9 is the same surfactant used in applicant’s example 1 and corresponds to the first surfactant component. Tergitol 15-S-15 is slightly different from the Tergitol 15-S-7 used in applicant example 1. However, Tergitol 15-S-15 still has a formula that corresponds to the second surfactant component according to formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
281
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The composition is used to was the napkins at 100-200°F (38-93°C) [0164]. The items cleaned are intended to be healthcare textiles abstract. Where “textiles” include polymer fibers (solid polymer bodies) [0048]. The polymers described remain solid at the described temperatures (below the solid transition). When washing textiles one of ordinary skill would recognize that multiple bodies can be washed simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2 and 3,
The specific washing temperatures used in ARMSTRONG includes a flush step at 120°F (49°C) Tables 3-4.
Regarding claim 4,
ARMSTRONG teaches using equal parts Ecosurf EH-9 (first surfactant) with Tergitol 15-S-7 (second surfactant) Table 2. The equal parts is a ratio of 1:1 which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6,
The Ecosurf EH-9 is the same surfactant used in applicant’s example 1 and corresponds to the first surfactant component. The same surfactant is expected to have the same ratio of PO:EO.
Regarding claim 7 and 8,
ARMSTRONG teaches water as an aqueous liquid carrier in the composition Table 2. This reflects applicant’s specification which uses water and optionally additional solvent. Water does not have a cloud point on its own. However, the composition further includes trademark alcohols, hexyl carbitol and various Dowanol. The examiner was unable to determine the cloud points for the various trademark solvents. However, the cloud point is a property that depends on concentration and pressure. Without additional definition, the water and alcohols of ARMSTRONG fall within the scope of aqueous liquid carrier and are interpreted to have the same measured cloud point within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DONALDSON et al. (US 3,528,841).
Regarding claim 28,
DONALDSON teaches a method of using a polyolefin powder as parting agents (surfactant) for polymer pellets abstract. The dispersing agent can be a commercially available product uses 50 wt% PO and 50 wt% EO column 2 lines 68-70. When using a copolymer of PO and EO, the polymer and dispersing agent are mixed with water (aqueous solution) column 3 lines 5-17. The propyl groups and ethyl groups are hydrophobic moieties. The reference teaches applying the dispersant to the polymer that is in melt form to create a coating on the pellets columns 3-4 but further notes that the water can be used to cool the polymer to form pellets (temperature below solid transition) column 4 lines 25-35. The polymer is processed through an extruder and cut while in the water column 3 lines 25-35 (providing strands to the aqueous composition and pelletizing).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARMSTRONG et al. (US 2022/0251474).
Regarding claim 5,
ARMSTRONG teaches an equal ratio of first and second surfactant but does not teach the ratio of 5:2 to 2:1. However, generally changes in concentration are not considered patentable without showing unexpected results, MPEP 2144.05.II. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manipulate the amounts of surfactant to achieve a desired cleaning at minimal cost.
Claim(s) 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARMSTRONG et al. (US 2022/0251474) in view of DAHLQUIST et al. (US 2020/0131453).
Regarding claims 17-23,
ARMSTRONG teaches using a nonionic surfactant with EO and PO. The reference does not expressly teach the PO/EO/PO structure. Based upon applicant’s specification, Pluronic 25r2 satisfies the claimed formula. DAHLQUIST teaches that known commercial cleaners and nonionic surfactants include both Pluronic 25r2 and Ecosurf EH-9, Table 4. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Pluronic 25r2 as a simple substitution of known commercially available EO/PO surfactants if one company’s products were unavailable. The single disclosed example of formula C (from applicant’s specification) is expected to map to the more generic claims.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONALDSON et al. (US 3,528,841).
Regarding claim 27,
DONALDSON teaches a method of using a polyolefin powder as parting agents (surfactant) for polymer pellets abstract. The dispersing agent can have varied amounts of propylene oxide (PO) and ethylene oxide (EO) column 2 lines 48-59. A specific commercially available product uses 50 wt% PO and 50 wt% EO column 2 lines 68-70. When using a copolymer of PO and EO, the polymer and dispersing agent are mixed with water (aqueous solution) column 3 lines 5-17. The propyl groups and ethyl groups are hydrophobic moieties. The reference teaches applying the dispersant to the polymer that is in melt form to create a coating on the pellets columns 3-4 but further notes that the water can be used to cool the polymer to form pellets (temperature below solid transition) column 4 lines 25-35.
As noted above, dispersing agent can have varied amounts of propylene oxide (PO) and ethylene oxide (EO) column 2 lines 48-59. The reference teaches specific examples of 50-50 wt% PO and EO which is over 50% EO on a molar basis. However, the reference teaches that the ratio of PO and EO is a result effective variable that can be changed to make a variety of products. The reference prefers over 50wt% EO when dispersing a thermoplastic polymer column 3 lines 1-4. However, the examiner notes that the reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, not just the preferred embodiments, MPEP 2123. In this instance, the claim is not limited to thermoplastic polymers as the polymer bodies accordingly, the optimal loading may be different when using non-thermoplastic polymers. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art may manipulate the PO/EO ratio, particularly when dispersing other types of polymers. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill may choose to use a suboptimal ratio of PO/EO if access to PO was easier and less costly. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use a molar ratio of PO to EO greater than 1 as the optimization of a result effective variable, MPEP 2144.05.II. A molar ratio will result in a weight percent of greater than 5% PO.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 24, 25, and 26 are 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:
For claim 9, ARMSTRONG reference is directed to washing textiles that can be made of polymeric material (polymer bodies). The polymer bodies are not pellets and the examiner could not motivate using a cleaning composition for textiles in a pelletization process.
For claims 24 and 25, ARMSTONG teaches using a mixture of fatty alcohols but does not expressly teach a first surfactant with the required EO/PO surfactant and a second surfactant with an ethyoxylated fatty alcohol and a butoxylated and ethoxylated fatty alcohol.
For claim 26 the examiner could not motivate using a polysiloxane ingredient in the textile washing composition of ARMSTRONG.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 5/15/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights