DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 16, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zack et al (20120260938) is withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-13, 16, 18-20 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zack et al (20120260938) in view of FR (2920435).
Zack et al disclose a method of dissolving and/or inhibiting the deposition of scale on a surface of a system comprises the step of bringing the surface of the system into contact with a composition. The composition can comprise from about 3 to about 15 parts by weight of a chelating component. The chelating component is selected from the group of MGDA, NTA, HEDTA, GLDA, EDTA, DTPA, and mixtures thereof. The composition can further comprise from about 3 to about 15 parts by weight of an acidic component, which is different than the chelating component. The composition can further comprise at least about 60 parts by weight of water. Each of the parts by weight ranges above are based on 100 parts by weight of the composition. The composition may further comprise a surfactant component and/or a corrosion inhibitor (abstract).
Specifically, the acidic component comprises an acidic component. Typically, the acidic component is selected from the group of an organic acid, an inorganic acid, and a combination thereof. Examples of suitable organic acids include straight chain or branched carboxylic acids including, but not limited to, lactic acid, acetic acid, formic acid, ascorbic acid, oxalic acid, hydroxymaleic acid, methane sulphonic acid, mandelic acid, glycolic acid, salicylic acid, a pyranosidyl acid such as glucuronic acid or galacturonic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, pamoic acid, alginic acid, gentisic acid, lactobionic acid, succinic acid, polymers of maleic acid and acrylic acid, and copolymers thereof. Examples of suitable inorganic acids include hydrochloric acid, hypochlorous and chlorous acid, sulfuric acid, sulphurous acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, amidosulfonic/sulfamic acid, and phosphorous acid.
In certain embodiments, the acidic component comprises an organic sulfonic acid, such as an alkyl sulfonic acid, e.g. methanesulfonic acid (MSA). Methanesulfonic acid is a strong organic acid that is completely non-oxidizing and thermally stable that forms highly soluble salts. In other embodiments, the acidic component comprises citric acid. In further embodiments, the acidic component comprises phosphoric acid. It is appreciated that the acidic component can include two or more different acids, such as methanesulfonic acid and phosphoric acid. If two or more acids are included, they can be in various ratios with respect to one another (0023-0024). Furthermore, the composition may further comprise a surfactant component. It is believed that in certain embodiments, including the surfactant component is useful for dissolving certain types of scales, such as rust. If employed, the surfactant component is typically selected from the group of nonionic surfactants, anionic surfactants, and ionic surfactants (0034). Moreover, the corrosion inhibitor is present in the composition in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 5, about 0.1 to about 5, about 0.5 to about 1.5, or about 1, part(s) by weight, each based on 100 parts by weight of the composition. Typically, the amounts described herein assume that the corrosion inhibitor includes 100% actives, i.e., 100% inhibitor. As such, if the corrosion inhibitor is aqueous, the amounts above can be adjusted accordingly to compensate for % actives dilution. See Tables 7, 9 examples 50 and 63 and claims 1-8.
Zack et al lacks an overlap of proportions with respect to the methanesulfonic acid and carbon chain length of the nonionic surfactant.
FR ‘435 discloses an aqueous composition (I) for cleaning of hard surface, comprises short-chain alkane sulfonic acids with 1-4 carbon atoms, preferably methane sulfonic acid; and up to 2 wt.%, preferably 0.1-0.6 wt.% of at least a surfactant. Independent claims are included for: (1) a process for preparing (I), comprising mixing and optionally diluting its constituents; and (2) a process for cleaning surface, comprising contacting the surfaces with (I), preferably at 10-90[deg] C for 1 minute to few tens of minutes, optionally one or more rinsing, and optionally drying. (abstract).
As examples of nonionic surfactants, mention may be made of alkoxylated alcohols, in particular ethoxylated and / or propoxylated alcohols, which are prepared by condensation according to well-known methods and many of which are commercial. The alkoxylated alcohols preferred as surfactants may be represented by the formula RO (E) e (P) p H where R is a hydrocarbon chain having 2 to 24 carbon atoms, E is ethylene oxide. The compositions of the invention in general contain from 0.5 to 80% by weight of alkanesulphonic acid (s); surfactants such as nonionic in an aqueous solution (see claims 1-6).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to optimize the carbon chain length to include carbon nonionic ethoxylates having short chains from 2 as suggested by FR ‘435 since optimizing successive carbon lengths is within the purview of the skilled artisan in the absence of criticality.
Similarly, with respect to the methanesulfonic acid component being from 25% or 45%, FR ‘435 teaches up to 80% for descaling purposes.
One skilled in the art would have optimized the amount suggested in Zack and increased accordingly since FR ‘435 teaches unexpectedly, the inventors have found that the cleaning compositions according to the invention retain the same or even better cleaning efficiency than the acid cleaning compositions having the same concentration of alkane sulfonic acid (s) (see document).
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601
(CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zack et al (20120260938) in view of FR (2920435) and further in view of EP (1122611).
Zack et al and FR ‘435 are relied upon as set forth above, specifically Zack et al do not teach the alkyl pyrrolidone in the composition.
EP ‘611 discloses A method for reducing the surface defects of a patterned photoresist layer on a substrate surface obtained by the procedure comprising the steps of (a) forming a photoresist layer of a positive-working chemical-amplification photoresist composition on the substrate surface (abstract). Specifically, N-octyl-pyrrolidone is utilized as a wetting or surface agent in the acidic aqueous solution is admixed to improve the wettability of the photoresist layer with the aqueous solution and to minimize the volume of the solution ejected. N-Octyl-2-pyrrolidone is an example of a surface active agent suitable for the purpose (0036).
Therefore, given that Zack et al include surfactants in acidic formulations for cleansing substrates and EP ‘611 teach that the specific N-octyl-pyrrolidone is well known surfactants for wetting substrates and cleansing, one skilled in the art would have been led to include the ingredient for its intended purpose, absent a showing to the contrary.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
Double Patenting
Claim 1-4, 6-16, 18-22 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-20 and 24 of copending Application No. 18/758,252 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in subject matter is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-15, 16, 18-20 and 22-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights