DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the applicant’s election received by the office on March 25, 2026. Election of claims 1-12 and 16-19 is acknowledged. However, upon further consideration and pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between the group of the inventions, as set forth in the Office action mailed on February 20, 2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 13-15 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3 Claims 1-13 and 16-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 1, the word “Composition” should be replaced with “ A composition”
In claims 2-9, in line 1, the word “Composition” should be replaced with “The composition”.
In claim 10 in line 1, the word “Method” should be replaced with “A method”.
In claim 11 in line 1, the word “Method” should be replaced with “The method”.
In claim 12, in line 1, the word “Cleaning” should be replaced with “A cleaning”.
In claim 13, in line 1, the word “Method” should be replaced with “A method”.
In claims 16-19, in line 1, the word “Composition” should be replaced with “ The composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4 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 6, 7 and 14-15 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.
Claim 6 indefinites because the claim recites the formula “R-CH2-CH=CH2)n-SO3Na” wherein “n” is not defined. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitations “CAS no. 1554325-20-0”, “CAS no. 68439-46-3” and “CAS no. 54549-24-5”. It is unclear what these limitations means?. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the pH of the emulsion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites a composition and not emulsion. Correction is required.
Claims 14 and 15 provide the use of a cleaning 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.
Claims 14 and 15 are 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 § 102
5 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.
6 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 1-2, 4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Bohlen et al. (EP 3418363 A1).
Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1) teaches a composition for cleaning hard surface, comprising (A) water, (B) N,N-dimethyl decenamide, (D) propylene glycol (di-alcohol) (amphiphilic liquid compound) and (E) Sodium octyl sulfate (anionic tenside) (sodium salts of sulfated fatty acids derived from vegetable oil) as claimed in claims 1, 2(B), 4(D4), 6(E1) and 12 (see 16, Table 1, Example Ex. 1). Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1) teaches a cleaning composition same to those claimed, which inherently should have all the ingredients be mixed to form the cleaning composition as claimed in claim 10. Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1) anticipates the claims.
7 Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Marin (WO 2019198007 A1).
Marin (WO’ 007 A1) teaches a cleaning composition comprising (A) water, 2(B) Limonene (liquid olefinic unsaturated compound), (D) propylene glycol (di-alcohol) (amphiphilic liquid compound) and (E) Sodium lauryl sulfate (anionic tenside) (sodium salts of sulfated fatty acids derived from vegetable oil) as claimed in claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 12 (see claim 7). Marin (WO’ 007 A1) teaches a cleaning composition same to those claimed, which inherently should have all the ingredients be mixed to form the cleaning composition as claimed in claim 10. Marin (WO’ 007 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Marin (WO’ 007 A1) anticipates the claims.
8 Claims 1-2, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Mehta et al. (EP 0604698 A2).
Mehta et al. (EP’ 698 A2) teaches a process for removing deposits from heat exchanger by applying a cleaning composition to the heat exchanger unit and wherein the cleaning composition was circulated for about 6 to 8 hours and the unit was then drained and rinsed with fresh water (see abstract and page 8, Example 5) and wherein the cleaning composition comprises (A) water, (B) limonene, (D) Butyl Cellusolve (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) (amphiphilic liquid compound) and (E) Monamulse 653-C (anionic surfactant) as claimed in claims 1, 2, 10 and 12-15 (see page 6, Table 1 (Mixture A)). Mehta et al. (EP’ 698 A2) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Mehta et al. (EP’ 698 A2) anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9 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.
10 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, 4, 7-8, 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fluck et al. (US 2012/0149626 A1).
Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) teaches a cleaning composition comprising from 1% to 50% by weight (A) water, (B) from 1% to 50% by weight terpene (liquid olefinic unsaturated compound), (C) from 0% to 7% by weight dibasic esters, (D) from 0% to 7% by weight polyol and (E) from 1% to 50% by weight sulfosuccinate (surfactant) as claimed in claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 18 (see page 3, paragraphs, 0025-0026). Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) teaches a cleaning composition comprising a buffering and/or pH control agents used to maintain the desired pH and wherein the buffer can be alkaline, acidic or neural (see page 10, paragraph, 0118) which have been obvious to one having ordinary in the art to determine and to maintain the desired pH of the cleaning composition as acetic, neutral and alkaline conditions include the range as claimed in claims 7 and 11.
The teaching of the prior art of Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) differs from the instant claims by teaching a cleaning composition comprising ingredients in percentage ranges that overlapped with the claimed ranges.
However, in view of the teaching of Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amounts of the ingredients in the cleaning composition in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the cleaning composition, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a cleaning composition to have similar results to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
11 Claims 3, 5, 9, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fluck et al. (US 2012/0149626 A1) in view of Chung et al. (TW 201712112 A). English translation of the Patent No. (TW 202712112 A) is used in this Office action.
Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) teaches a cleaning composition comprising from 1% to 50% by weight (A) water, (B) from 1% to 50% by weight terpene (liquid olefinic unsaturated compound), (C) from 0% to 7% by weight dibasic esters, (D) from 0% to 7% by weight polyol and (E) from 1% to 50% by weight sulfosuccinate (surfactant) as claimed in claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 18 (see page 3, paragraphs, 0025-0026).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) by reciting a composition comprising liquid esters (C ) as claimed in claim 3( C) and 19 (C ), amphiphilic liquid compounds (D) include ketones as claimed in claim 5 (D1) and liquid olefinic unsaturated compound (B) as claimed in claim 9 (B) and amphiphilic liquid compounds (D) as claimed in claim 5 (D1), claim 9 (D1), claim 16 (D1) and claim 17 (D1).
Chung et al. (TW’ 112 A) in analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising ester-based solvents (C ) include benzyl acetate as claimed in claim 3 (C), and 19 (C) (see English translation, page 106, last paragraph), and amphiphilic liquid compounds (D) include ketones such as cyclohexanone as claimed in claims 5 (D1), claim 9 (D1), claim 16 (D1) and 17 (D1) (see English translation, page 106, the third paragraph from the bottom) and liquid olefinic compounds ((B) include alkane as claimed in claim 9 (B) (see English translation, page 107, second paragraph).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Chung et al. (TW’ 112 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 cleaning composition of Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) by incorporating ester based solvents, amphiphilic liquid compounds and liquid olefinic compounds as taught by Chung et al. (TW’ 112 A) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) that referred to use ester based solvents, amphiphilic liquid compounds and liquid olefinic compounds in a cleaning composition, and, thus the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of ester based solvents, amphiphilic liquid compounds and liquid olefinic compounds as taught by Chung et al. (TW’ 112 A) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Fluck et al. (US’ 626 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
Prosecution Insights