DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the amendment filed on August 10, 2020.
2 The cancellation of claims 2, 14 and 15 is acknowledged. Pending claims are 1, 3-13 and 16-19.
3 The objection and the rejections of the claims under 112, second paragraph, 102 and 103 are withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment.
NEW GRAOUND OF REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4 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.
5 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, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohlen et al. (EP 3418363 A1) in view of Benannte et al. (EP 3536769 A1). English translation of the Patent EP 3536769 A1 is used in this Office action.
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, (B), 4(D4), 6(E1) and 12 (see 16, Table 1, Example Ex. 1). Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1) teaches a cleaning composition comprising ingredients similar to those claimed, which obviously should have all the ingredients be mixed to form the cleaning composition as claimed in claim 10.
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising N, N-dimethyl 9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene compounds.
Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) in analogous of a cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising solvents include N, N-dimethyl-9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene as claimed in claim 1 (see English translation, page 45, last paragraph). Benannate et al., (EP’ 769 A1) also teaches that these solvents are well known to those skilled in the art (see English translation, page 46, first paragraph).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1), 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 Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1) by incorporating the solvents N,N-dimethyl 9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene as taught by Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) clearly suggests the use of these solvents in the cleaning composition as well known to those skilled in the art, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of these solvents in the claiming composition as taught by Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Bohlen et al. (EP’ 363 A1), absent unexpected results.
6 Claims 1, 4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (WO 2019198007 A1) in view of Benannte et al. (EP 3536769 A1). English translation of the Patent EP 3536769 A1 is used in this Office action.
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, 4, 6 and 12 (see claim 7). Marin (WO’ 007 A1) teaches a cleaning composition similar to those claimed, which obviously should have all the ingredients be mixed to form the cleaning composition as claimed in claim 10.
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Marin (WO’ 007 A1) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising N, N-dimethyl 9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene compounds.
Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) in analogous of a cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising solvents include N, N-dimethyl-9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene as claimed in claim 1 (see English translation, page 45, last paragraph). Benannate et al., (EP’ 769 A1) also teaches that these solvents are well known to those skilled in the art (see English translation, page 46, first paragraph).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1), 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 Marin (WO’ 007 A1) by incorporating the solvents N,N-dimethyl 9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene as taught by Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) clearly suggests the use of these solvents in the cleaning composition as well known to those skilled in the art, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of these solvents in the claiming composition as taught by Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Marin (WO’ 007 A1), absent unexpected results.
7 Claims 1, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (EP 0604698 A2) in view of Benannte et al. (EP 3536769 A1). English translation of the Patent EP 3536769 A1 is used in this Office action.
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, 10 and 12-13 (see page 6, Table 1 (Mixture A)).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Mehta et al. (EP’ 698 A2) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising N, N-dimethyl 9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene compounds.
Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) in analogous of a cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising solvents include N, N-dimethyl-9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene as claimed in claim 1 (see English translation, page 45, last paragraph). Benannate et al., (EP’ 769 A1) also teaches that these solvents are well known to those skilled in the art (see English translation, page 46, first paragraph).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1), 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 Mehta et al. (EP’ 698 A2) by incorporating the solvents N,N-dimethyl 9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene as taught by Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) clearly suggests the use of these solvents in the cleaning composition as well known to those skilled in the art, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of these solvents in the claiming composition as taught by Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Mehta et al. (EP’ 698 A2), absent unexpected results.
8 Claims 1, 3-12 and 16-19 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) and further, in view of in view of Benannte et al. (EP 3536769 A1). English translation of the Patent No. (TW 202712112 A) and Patent (EP 3536769 A1) are 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 34% by weight sulfosuccinate (surfactant) and sodium laureth sulfate as claimed in claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 (see page 3, paragraphs, 0025-0026 and page 5, paragraph, 0059). 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 instant claims differ from the teaching of Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1) by reciting a composition comprising liquid esters (C ) as claimed in claims 3 ( C), 9 (C ), 18( 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), 18 ( 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 4 (D1) and 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).
Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) in other analogous of a cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising solvents include N, N-dimethyl-9-decenamide, methyl 9-dodecenoate and limonene as claimed in claim 1 (see English translation, page 45, last paragraph). Benannate et al., (EP’ 769 A1) also teaches that these solvents are well known to those skilled in the art (see English translation, page 46, first paragraph).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Chung et al., (TW’ 112 A) and Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1), 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) and Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1), 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 also based on the teaching of Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) that clearly suggests the use of these solvents in the cleaning composition as well known to those skilled in the art, 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) and Benannte et al., (EP’ 769 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Fluck et al. (US’ 626 A1), absent unexpected results.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
9 Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pervious rejections of the claims, have been considered but are moot because the new ground because the rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in this Office action.
Conclusion
10 Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 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