DETAILED ACTION
1 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation “a color less than 100 APHA”. In is unclean what is mean by “color less than 100 APHA”?. The claimed specification does not provide any guidance. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3 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.
4 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 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (JP 2014122416 A1) in view of Woodson et al. (US 4808235 A). English translation of the Patent No. (JP 2014122416 A) is used in this Office action.
Kim (JP’ 416 A) teaches cleaning composition for cleaning the surface of the printed circuit board (see page 17, Example 2), wherein the cleaning composition comprises glycol ether, alcohol amine (organic amine), amine surfactant and the balance water as claimed in claim 1 (see claims 1-2). Kim (JP’ 416 A) also teaches a process for preparing the cleaning composition wherein a glycol ether, an alcohol amine and surfactant added to the water and mixed well to produce the cleaning composition as claimed in claims 9 and 10 (see page 17, Examples 1 and 2). Kim (JP’ 416 A) also teaches a process for cleaning a surface of a printed circuit board by spray the cleaning composition for about 20 seconds (less than 120 seconds) and washed with water as claimed in claims 11 and 13-14 (see page 17, Example 2).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Kim (JP’ 416 A) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising two or more glycol ethers selected from tripropylene glycol propyl ether, tetrapropylene glycol propyl ether, pentapropylene glycol propyl ether, hextapropylene glycol propyl ether, heptapropylene glycol propyl ether and octapropylene glycol propyl ether.
Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A) in analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising glycol ethers having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R is 3 carbon atoms to form (propyl) radical, X is methyl radical, X’ is a hydrogen atom to form (propylene) group, n is 3 to form (tripropylene), 4 to form (tetrapropylene) and 5 to form (pentapropylene) that reads on the claimed species tripropylene glycol propyl ether, tetrapropylene glycol propyl ether and pentapropylene glycol propyl ether claimed in claim 1, and wherein the glycol ethers obviously should have similar physical properties of boiling point, molecular weight, similar number of hydroxy number, solubility parameter and a color less as those claimed in claims 1-5, 7 and 15 (see col. 1, lines 59-64).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Woodson et al. (US’ 235 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 cleaning composition of Kim (JP’ 416 A) by incorporating the glycol ethers as taught by Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A that suggests the use of a cleaning fluid that has a relatively low freezing point so that it can be used and stored in area subjected to extreme cold temperatures without precipitation of the components or the formulation of ice crystals (see col. 1, lines 36-40), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add glycol ethers to the cleaning composition in order to create a cleaning composition that stored in areas subjected to extreme cold temperatures and would expect such a cleaning composition to have similar property to those claimed, in the absence of unexpected results.
Further, regarding the limitations of claims 11 and 13-14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate and to obtain the amount of the reduced contaminants from the substrate by adjusting the amount of the cleaning composition that applied to the substate and the time that required to clean the substrate, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a cleaning process to have similar results of reducing the contaminants on the surface of the substrate as those claimed. Absent unexpected results.
5 Claims 1-5, 7- 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan (CN 106833993 A) in view of Woodson et al. (US 4808235 A). English translation of the Patent No. (CN 106833993 A) is used in this Office action.
Xuan (CN’ 993 A) teaches a water-based cleaning composition comprising 50 to 70% wt., of water, 10-25% wt., of glycol ether, propylene glycol ether 10-20% wt., (20-45% wt., of all glycol ethers), 5-10 % wt., alcoholamine (organic amine) and 4-10% wt., surfactant as claimed in claims 1 and 8 (see page 2, abstract). Xuan (CN’ 993 A) also teaches a process for preparing a water-based cleaning composition by mixing glycol ether, propylene glycol ether, alcohol amine and surfactant with water to obtain the water-based cleaning composition as claimed in claims 9 and 10 (see English translation claim 10).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Xuan (CN’ 993 A) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising two or more glycol ethers selected from tripropylene glycol propyl ether, tetrapropylene glycol propyl ether, pentapropylene glycol propyl ether, hextapropylene glycol propyl ether, heptapropylene glycol propyl ether and octapropylene glycol propyl ether.
Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A) in analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising glycol ethers having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R is alkyl group of 3 carbon atoms to form (propyl) radical, X is methyl radical, X’ is a hydrogen atom o form (propylene) group, n is 3 to form (tripropylene), 4 to form (tetrapropylene) and 5 to form (pentapropylene) that reads on the claimed species tripropylene glycol propyl ether, tetrapropylene glycol propyl ether and pentapropylene glycol propyl ether claimed in claim 1, and wherein the glycol ethers obviously should have similar physical properties of boiling point, molecular weight, similar number of hydroxy number, solubility parameter and a color less as those claimed in claims 1-5, 7 and 15 (see col. 1, lines 59-64).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Woodson et al. (US’ 235 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 cleaning composition of Xuan (CN’ 993 A) by incorporating the glycol ethers as taught by Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A that suggests the use of a cleaning fluid that has a relatively low freezing point so that it can be used and stored in area subjected to extreme cold temperatures without precipitation of the components or the formulation of ice crystals (see col. 1, lines 36-40), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add glycol ethers to the cleaning composition in order to create a cleaning composition that stored in areas subjected to extreme cold temperatures and would expect such a cleaning composition to have similar property to those claimed, in the absence of unexpected results.
6 Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (JP 2014122416 A1) in view of Xuan (CN 106833993 A) and further, in view of Woodson et al. (US 4808235 A). English translations of the Patent No. (CN 106833993 A) and the Patent No. (JP 2014122416 A) are used in this Office action.
The disclosure of Kim (JP’ 416 A1) as described above, does not teach a process for cleaning a substrate under ultrasonic cleaning condition as claimed in claim 12.
However, Kim (JP’ 416 A) teaches a process for cleaning a surface of a printed circuit board by spray the cleaning composition for about 20 seconds (less than 120 seconds) and washed with water (see page 17, Example 2).
Xuan (CN’ 993 A) in analogous art of a cleaning formulation, teaches a process of cleaning a surface of printed circuit board by applying a cleaning composition to the surface under spraying through ultrasonic as claimed in claim 12 (see page 16, paragraphs, 7-9).
Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A) in analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising glycol ethers having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R is alkyl group of 3 carbon atoms to form (propyl) radical, X is methyl radical, X’ is a hydrogen atom to form (propylene) radical , n is 3 to form (tripropylene), 4 to form (tetrapropylene) and 5 to form (pentapropylene) that reads on the claimed species tripropylene glycol propyl ether, tetrapropylene glycol propyl ether and pentapropylene glycol propyl ether claimed in claim 1 (see col. 1, lines 59-64).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Xuan (CN’ 993 A) and Woodson et al. (US’ 235 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 cleaning composition of Kim (JP’ 416 A) by incorporating the glycol ethers as taught by Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A) and to modify the cleaning process of Kim (JP’ 416 A1) by incorporating ultrasonic cleaning condition as taught by Xuan (CN’ 993 A) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Woodson et al. (US’ 235 A that suggests the use of a cleaning fluid that has a relatively low freezing point so that it can be used and stored in area subjected to extreme cold temperatures without precipitation of the components or the formulation of ice crystals (see col. 1, lines 36-40), and, the person of the ordinary skill in the art also would expect that the use of ultrasonic cleaning condition as taught by Xuan (CN’ 993 A) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning process taught by Kim (JP’ 416 A), absent unexpected results.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
7 Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot because, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and due to the amendment of the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in this Office action.
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