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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn. Claim 10 is new.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “wherein the fabric surfaces of the interior parts of the vehicle is the surface of a fabric seat” should apparently be replaced with “wherein the fabric surfaces of the interior parts of the vehicle are the surfaces of a fabric seat” (emphasis added), or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19511193 to Ecolab GmbH and Co. OHG (“Ecolab”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ecolab teaches an aqueous composition (page 3, lines 2-9, page 3, line 65 – page 4, line 5, page 4, lines 3-5 and 35, page 4, line 60 – page 5, line 5, page 9, lines 25-60, tables 1 and 2, composition 5, translation, abstract) useful for the cleaning and/or stain removal of plastic and fabric surfaces of the interior parts of vehicles comprising glycolic acid and lactic acid (table 2, translation, page 6, para beginning “A concentrate for the preparation”, page 7, para beginning “In the following”, page 10, claim 10). It is noted that the recited vehicles are not positively claimed and are not interpreted to be required features of the claimed composition.
Ecolab does not explicitly teach composition wherein each of the glycolic acid and lactic acid are in amounts comprised between 01% and 5% in weight. Ecolab discloses amounts of 10% (table 2). However, Ecolab discloses that the disclosed amounts are a concentrate form (translation, page 7, para beginning “In the following”). Further, Ecolab discloses carboxylic acids generically at 0.2% to 5% in aqueous form (translation, page 3, para beginning “The aqueous cleaning liquids”, page 10, claim 5), and glycolic acid and lactic acid are carboxylic acids.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Ecolab solution wherein, with the addition of the water, each of the glycolic acid and lactic acid are in amounts comprised between 01% and 5% in weight, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure to add water and that the listed amounts are in concentrate form, and the concentration of carboxylic acids in aqueous form. Further, overlapping, approaching and similar ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the present specification does not appear to demonstrate the criticality of the recited range.
Regarding claim 2, Ecolab does not explicitly teach the composition having a pH lower than 3, but discloses a composition range of 3 to 12 (translation, page 5, para beginning “To adjust the pH”). It is noted that overlapping, approaching and similar ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Ecolab discloses a composition further comprising non-ionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, emulsifiers, sequestering agents, dyes and perfumes (table 2, composition 5, translation, page 3, para beginning “For use in the cleaning liquids”, page 4, para beginning “The cleaning liquid can be used”, page 5, para beginning “Although the cleaning liquid”).
Regarding claim 4, the Ecolab composition appears to be fully capable of being used in a manner wherein the vehicles are selected between cars, motor vehicles, lorries, buses, road trains, railway carriages and other public or private means of locomotion on rails. It is noted that the recited vehicles are not positively claimed and are not interpreted to be required features of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 5, the Ecolab composition appears to be fully capable of being used in a manner wherein the stain is inorganic. It is noted that the recited stain is not positively claimed and is not interpreted to be a required feature of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 10, the Ecolab composition appears to be fully capable of being used in a manner wherein the fabric surfaces of the interior parts of the vehicle is the surface of a fabric seat. It is noted that the recited vehicle is not positively claimed and is not interpreted to be a required feature of the claimed composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Ecolab does not contemplate using the composition for the interior parts of vehicles (remarks, page 6, para beginning “This cleaning composition”, page 7, para beginning “Thus, starting”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed composition must result in a component 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 composition is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the Ecolab composition does not comprise free acids, remarks, page 6, para beginning “The main difference”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Ecolab does not explicitly teach the claimed concentration of glycolic acid and lactic acid (remarks, page 6, last full para), applicant’s attention is directed to the Office action mailed 02/02/2026, para bridging pages 4-5).
Conclusion
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). 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 ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights