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 02/23/2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPO form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant traverses on the grounds that the instant invention does not lack unity of invention. The examiner finds the applicant’s argument unpersuasive and maintains the restriction due to Groups I-IV being drawn to different inventions and do not relating to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1, because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical feature for the reasons as stated in the previous office action.
Applicant is reminded that the application is National Stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. Therefore, when the application lacks unity of invention, i.e. there is not special technical feature linking the different groups, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted. See MPEP §1893.03(d).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper thereby the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-6 are under consideration in the current office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et. al (WO1997005222A1) hereinafter Carlson, as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich and PubChem.
Carlson teaches a cleaning solution for degreasing metal articles with contain water soluble alkyl substituted amides (see Abstract). With regards to claim 1, Carlson teaches a composition concentrate comprising 200 g/kg RHODOMAX LO surfactant (a nonionic surfactant), 20 g/kg N-octyl-2-pyrrolidone, 50 g/kg sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, 50 g/kg 60% K4P2O7 (a diphosphate), 2 g/kg COBRATEC 725 which has a pH of 12.5 (see Composition 4, Table 1). The composition contains no borate or borate derivative. It is known in the art that the molecular mass of sodium metasilicate pentahydrate is 212.14 g/mol (see Sigma Aldrich “Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate”) and K4P2O7 is 330.34 g/mol (see PubChem “Potassium Pyrophosphate”). Hence the molar ratio of Si:P is 1:1.07 (50/212.14:50/(330.34x0.6)). It is noted, Table 1 and Table 4 of the instant specification teach Si:P molar ratio to be 0.90-1.0 when roughly equal amounts of metal silicate and diphosphate are used (see page 18 and 21).
While Carlson does not explicitly disclose a composition with 2 phosphates and the claimed ratio of Si atoms to P atoms, the use of alkali metal orthophosphates as organic builders and disodium orthophosphate suitable alkalinizing agents in the composition is taught (see page 10, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Composition 4 of Carlson by adding disodium orthophosphate for the benefit of alkalinizing the composition (see page 10, line 12). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the ratio of Si:P atoms to still fall within the range recited in claim 1 after this addition because the addition of orthophosphate to a composition with roughly equal amounts of metal silicate and diphosphate results in a 1.0 Si:P molar ratio as noted in the instant specification (see IM3 Table 1 and Table 4, page 18 and 21).
With regards to claim 2, Carlson teaches the use of alkali metal carbonates as organic builders and sodium carbonate as an alkalinizing agent (see page 10, lines 8-12).
With regards to claim 5, Carlson explicitly teaches the use of sodium metal silicate pentahydrate and potassium diphosphate (K4P2O7) in composition 4 and the general use of disodium metal orthophosphates (see page 10, line 12).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (WO1997005222A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5 above, and further in view of Schulz et, al (US6673765B1) hereinafter Schulz.
The teachings of Carlson are recited above. Carlson teaches a composition concentrate comprising 200 g/kg RHODOMAX LO surfactant (a nonionic surfactant), 20 g/kg N-octyl-2-pyrrolidone, 50 g/kg sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, 50 g/kg 60% K4P2O7 (a diphosphate), 2 g/kg COBRATEC 725 which has a pH of 12.5 (see Composition 4, Table 1). Carlson does not explicitly teach the presence of a triphosphate in the composition.
Schulz teaches example alkaline cleaning compositions comprising of a nonionic surfactant and hardening agents (see Examples 1-4). Schulz teaches a liquid premix comprising of 44.86 wt% nonylphenol ethoxylate, 4.00 wt% caustic soda (Na2CO3), 1 wt% water, among others of the final composition, and a solid premix which comprises 18.71 wt% anhydrous metasilicate, and 24.80 wt% sodium tripolyphosphate (a triphosphate), among others in Example 2. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify composition 4 from Carlson with the sodium tripolyphosphate taught by Schulz for the benefit of fixing the free water present in the composition as a water of hydration (see column 9, lines 3-5). A person with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the composition of Carlson with the tripolyphosphate of Schulz in order to form a third cleaning composition comprising of both sodium diphosphate and triphosphate.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et. al (US4265780A) hereinafter Kimura, as evidenced by PubChem.
Kimura teaches an alkaline solution with a pH of 8-13 for washing the surface of a tin-plated steel can (see Abstract). With regards to claim 1, Kimura teaches a base for a cleaning composition comprising 4.0 g/L sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3), 3.0 g/L sodium tripolyphosphate (Na5P3O10), 0.5 g/L Surfonic LF 17 surfactant among others with a pH of 11.0 (see Base Cleaning Solution No. 3; see also Table 1). Kimura does not explicitly teach the Si:P molar ratio of the composition, however Kimura does teach the mass ratio of Na2SiO3 to Na5P3O10 in Base Cleaning Solution 3 to be 4:3 (1.33) (see Table 1). It is noted, IM-1 of the instant specification, a 10:7 (1.43) mass ratio of Na2SiO3 to Na5P3O10 results in a Si:P molar ratio of 1:1 (see Tables 1 and 4). Hence, it would be obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the Si:P molar ratio of Base Cleaning Composition 3 to fall within the ranges recited in the instant claim because of the similar mass ratios.
Kimura also does not explicitly disclose the presence of orthophosphates in Base Cleaning Solution 3. However, Kimura does teach the use of phytic acid (myoinositol ester with phosphoric acid molecules) in at least 0.5-50 g/L to adjust the base cleaning compositions (see column 2, lines 25-47; see also Table 1). It is noted in the instant specification, orthophosphate forms from phosphoric acid when phosphoric acid is used to adjust the pH (see page 9). Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would reasonably expect the presence of some orthophosphate from the phosphoric acid in Base Cleaning Composition 3. A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the ratio of Si:P atoms to still fall within the range recited in claim 1 in the presence of the orthophosphate from the phosphoric acid because only 0.5 g/L of phytic acid was added to the base composition. The mass ratio of Na2SiO3 to Na5P3O10 in Base Cleaning Solution 3 was less than the mass ratio noted in IM-1 of the instant specification will resulted in a Si:P molar ratio of 1.0.
With regards to claim 4, Kimura generally teaches the addition of at least 0.5-50 g/L phytic acid (containing phosphoric acid) to the composition (see column 3, lines 46-47). In Table 1, phytic acid (comprising phosphoric acid) is added in amounts ranging from 0-2 g/L to adjust pH of the example compositions. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized the amount of phytic acid (containing orthophosphate) used to adjust the pH of Base Cleaning Solution 3 through routine experimentation for best results. Given the general teaching of 0.5-50 g/L of phytic acid can be added to the composition, a person of skill in the art would reasonably expect to be able to optimize the amount of phytic acid (containing orthophosphate) such that that the molar ratio of sum of the P atoms from the orthophosphate to the sum of the P atoms in the tripolyphosphate fell in the 1:1.2 to 1:3.5 range recited in the instant claim. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 6, Kimura teaches a base for a cleaning composition comprising 4.0 g/L sodium metasilicate (32.77 mmol/L), 3.0 g/L sodium tripolyphosphate (8.16 mmol/L), 0.5 g/L Surfonic LF 17 surfactant among others with a pH of 11.0 (see Table 1). 0.5-1 g/L of phytic acid was added to adjust pH (0.75-1.50 mmol/L). It is known in the art that the molar mass of Na2SiO3 is 122.06 g/mol (see PubChem “Sodium Silicate”), and Na5P3O10 is 367.86 g/mol (see PubChem “Sodium Tripolyphosphate”). Hence, the molar concentration of Si atoms from metasilicate is 32.77 mmol/L, the molar concentration of P atoms from tripolyphosphate is 24.46 mmol/L (8.16 mmol/L x 3 P atoms/mol). Because the range of phytic aid (containing orthophosphate) is from 0.5-50g/L, it would be reasonably to expect that molar concentration of the P atoms from the phosphoric acid would overlap with the ranges recited in the instant specification.
Conclusion
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