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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term “characterized” should be changed to --comprising-- or -- wherein -- so as to comply with accepted U.S. Patent practice.
Claim 13 should recite “erucylamide”, instead of “erucylmide” in line 3.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/195403 to Labib et al. (hereinafter “Labib”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Labib teaches a composition for cleaning long narrow lumens, channels, tubes, and other surfaces irrespective of geometries or material of construction [0002] (reads on “purging composition”), wherein the composition comprises a polymer [0011, 0025, 0027, 0033, and 00130], and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) [0095-0096].
Labib does not explicitly teach that the composition is for purging extrusion equipment, kneading equipment, mixing equipment, compounding equipment, melt spinning equipment, or molding equipment.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the cleaning composition disclosed by Labib can be used for purging extrusion equipment, kneading equipment, mixing equipment, compounding equipment, melt spinning equipment, or molding equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Labib teaches that the composition is effective for decontaminating, cleaning, sanitizing, disinfecting, and treating long narrow lumens, channels, tubes, and other surfaces irrespective of geometries or material of construction [0002].
Regarding claim 3, Labib further teaches that the composition comprises polyethylene glycol (reads on “polyether”) [00130].
Regarding claim 5, Labib does not teach that the amount of polymer in the composition is 15-95%, or 30-85%, or 40-60% by weight.
However, the amount of polymer in the composition is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the amount of polymer in the composition is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the surface to be cleaned, while if the amount of polymer in the composition is too high, it wastes the polymer. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of polymer in the composition with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 6, Labib further teaches that the composition comprises microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) in an amount from about 0.1 to 10% by weight [0096].
Regarding claim 7, Labib does not teach that the MCC comprises 0-15%, or 0.5-8%, or 1-5% by weight hemicellulose.
However, the amount of hemicellulose in the MCC is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the amount of hemicellulose in the MCC is too low, it reduces the material's swelling capacity, flexibility, and dynamic water dispersion needed for certain cleaning dynamics, while if the amount of hemicellulose in the MCC is too high, it affects the crystallinity and structural purity of the microcrystalline cellulose, leading to poor performance. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of hemicellulose in the MCC with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 8, Labib further teaches that the composition comprises a mineral filler (calcium carbonate) [00100], and other additives [00136, 00137, and 00156].
Regarding claim 9, Labib further teaches that the mineral filler (calcium carbonate) has a Mohs hardness of around 4 [00100].
Regarding claim 10, Labib further teaches that the mineral filler is calcium carbonate [00100].
Regarding claim 12, Labib further teaches that the composition comprises an organic acid [00136, and 00152 (e.g., citric acid)].
Regarding claim 14, Labib further teaches that the composition is in the form of particles [0013].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Labib teaches a method for cleaning long narrow lumens, channels, tubes, and other surfaces irrespective of geometries or material of construction [0002, and 00199] with a composition comprising a polymer [0011, 0025, 0027, 0033, 00130], and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) [0095-0096].
Labib does not teach that the method is for cleaning extrusion equipment, kneading equipment, mixing equipment, compounding equipment, or molding equipment to remove a contaminant therefrom, wherein the equipment is an extrusion molding machine, an injection molding machine, a compounding machine, a powder paint mixer, a kneader, melt mixing equipment, melt spinning equipment, or any combination thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Labib for cleaning an extrusion equipment, kneading equipment, mixing equipment, compounding equipment, or molding equipment to remove a contaminant therefrom, wherein the equipment is an extrusion molding machine, an injection molding machine, a compounding machine, a powder paint mixer, a kneader, melt mixing equipment, melt spinning equipment, or any combination thereof, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Labib teaches that the method is effective for decontaminating, cleaning, sanitizing, disinfecting, and treating long narrow lumens, channels, tubes, and other surfaces irrespective of geometries or material of construction in general [0002].
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Labib teaches a use composition for cleaning long narrow lumens, channels, tubes, and other surfaces irrespective of geometries or material of construction [0002 and 00199] (reads on “purging composition”), wherein the composition comprises a polymer [0011, 0025, 0027, 0033, 00130], and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) [0095-0096].
Labib does not explicitly teach that the composition is for cleaning equipment used for machining or handling materials such as plastics, polymeric materials, polymeric resins, paints, and unvulcanized rubber to remove a contaminant or residue therefrom, wherein the equipment is an extrusion or injection molding machine, a mixer, or melt spinning equipment to remove a contaminant therefrom.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the composition disclosed by Labib can be used for cleaning equipment used for machining or handling materials such as plastics, polymeric materials, polymeric resins, paints, and unvulcanized rubber to remove a contaminant or residue therefrom, wherein the equipment is an extrusion or injection molding machine, a mixer, or melt spinning equipment to remove a contaminant therefrom, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Labib teaches that the composition is for effective decontaminating, cleaning, sanitizing, disinfecting, and treating long narrow lumens, channels, tubes, and other surfaces irrespective of geometries or material of construction in general [0002].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/195403 to Labib et al. (hereinafter “Labib”) in view of JP 2009039863 to Nakabayashi et al. (hereinafter “Nakabayashi”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Labib does not teach that the composition comprises polyethylene, polypropylene or their copolymers with acrylic monomers.
Nakabayashi teaches a composition for cleaning molding machines used for molding various resins (English translation [0001]), wherein the composition comprises cellulose fibers (English translation [0025]) and a thermoplastic resin such as polypropylene (English translation [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the composition disclosed by Labib wherein the composition comprises polypropylene, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Nakabayashi teaches that a composition comprising polypropylene is effective for transporting cellulose fibers (English translation [0015, 0025, and 0033]).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/195403 to Labib et al. (hereinafter “Labib”) in view of US 2011/0094540 to Morken et al. (hereinafter “Morken”).
Regarding claim 11, Labib does not teach that the composition comprises a phenolic primary antioxidant, a phosphite-based secondary antioxidant, or any combinations thereof.
Morken teaches a purging composition for cleaning the interior of a polymer processing equipment having a resin composition retained therein (abstract), wherein the composition comprises polymers [0024], fillers [0075-0076], and primary and secondary antioxidants including butylated phenol derivatives, and phosphites [0081].
It would have been obvious to eon of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition disclosed by Labib with primary and secondary antioxidants including butylated phenol derivatives, and phosphites, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Morken teaches that it was known in the art to include primary and secondary antioxidants including butylated phenol derivatives, and phosphites in a purging composition for cleaning the interior of a processing equipment ([0081] of Morken).
Regarding claim 13, Labib does not teach that the composition comprises zinc stearate, calcium stearate, oleamide, erucylamide, or any combination thereof.
Morken teaches a purging composition for cleaning the interior of a polymer processing equipment having a resin composition retained therein (abstract), wherein the composition comprises polymers [0024], fillers [0075-0076], and lubricants such as calcium stearate [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition disclosed by Labib by adding calcium stearate, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Labib teaches that the composition can comprise lubricants ([00157] of Labib), and Morken teaches that it was known in the art to include a lubricant such as calcium stearate in a purging composition for cleaning the interior of a processing equipment ([0079] of Morken).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights