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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typo 1: In paragraph 0020, benzyl alcohol, 2-phenylethanol, 2-aminobenzyl alcohol, and 3-aminobenzyl alcohol do not have chemical structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1-13 and claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2017047386 A), in further view of Tamaoki (JP 2015129231 A) and Ethox (“The 411 on Phosphate Esters”).
With regard to claims 1-13, Sato discloses an aqueous liquid stripping solution (see [0005]). Sato further discloses 25-65wt% of benzyl alcohol (see [0057]), sodium 2,4-xylenesulfonate as a surfactant (see [0057]), 3-20wt% of surfactants (see [0058]), and 20-60wt% of water (see [0058]).
With respect to the ratio of X = (A/(A+B)), X ≥ 0.6, and C ≤ (-1.80 x X2 + 1.05 x X + 0.72) x 100, considering that Sato teaches benzyl alcohol in the range of 25-65wt% as disclosed in [0057], sodium 2,4-xylenesulfonate in the range of 3-20wt% as disclosed in [0057]-[0058], and water in the range of 20-60wt% as disclosed in [0058], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (e.g. 40 wt% of benzyl alcohol, 13.3 wt% of sodium 2,4-xylenesulfonate, and 49.5 wt% of water or X = 0.75). Routine experimentation would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to these concentrations.
X
≥
A
A
+
B
0.75
≥
40
40
+
B
0.75
40
+
B
≥
40
30
+
0.75
B
≥
40
0.75
B
≥
10
B
≥
13.3
C
≤
-
1.80
x
X
2
+
1.05
x
X
+
0.72
x
100
C
≤
-
1.80
x
0.75
2
+
1.05
x
(
0.75
)
+
0.72
x
100
C
≤
-
1.80
x
(
0.5625
)
+
0.7875
+
0.72
x
100
C
≤
-
1.0125
+
0.7875
+
0.72
x
100
C
≤
0.495
x
100
C
≤
49.5
However, Sato fails to disclose an alkanolamine.
Tamaoki discloses a release agent capable of sufficiently peeling a coating film, an analogous art (see Abstract). Tamaoki further discloses 0.5-60wt% of an alkanolamine (see [0011]) and diethanolamine as a suitable alkanolamine (see [0010]). Tamaoki further discloses that if the alkanolamine content is above the lower limit, the stripping performance of the stripping agent will be more sufficiently high, and if it is below the upper limit, discoloration of the metal substrate surface can be more suppressed (see [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the diethanolamine of Tamaoki at 0.5-60wt% in the composition of Sato for the purpose of increasing the stripping performance and suppressing the discoloration of the metal, as disclosed by Tamaoki.
Sato further fails to disclose an anionic surfactant.
Ethox discloses phosphate esters as suitable anionic surfactants (see paragraph 1). Ethox further discloses phosphate esters as useful in enhancing surface wetting and reducing flash rusting (see paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the phosphate ester anionic surfactants of Ethox in the composition of Sato for the purpose of enhancing surface wetting and reducing flash rusting, as disclosed by Ethox.
With regard to claim 15, Sato, Tamaoki, and Enox, disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tamaoki discloses a rinsing process step and further discloses immersing the metal substrate in a rinsing solution (see [0019]). Tamaoki further discloses the metal substrate may be aluminum (see Examples 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of Tamaoki with the composition of Sato. As Tamaoki discloses benzyl alcohol, diethanolamine, and anionic surfactants, similar to Sato, it stands to reason that a method of using the composition of Tamaoki would be suitable for the composition of Sato.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2017047386 A) in view of Tamaoki (JP 2015129231 A) and Ethox (“The 411 on Phosphate Esters”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanghai Minglan Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Determine What Is Lauryl Succinic Acid Rust Inhibitor?”).
With regard to claim 14, Sato, Tamaoki, and Ethox disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Sato, Tamaoki, and Ethox fail to disclose a succinic-type anionic surfactant.
Shanghai Minglan Chemical Co., Ltd. discloses lauryl succinic acid as a rust inhibitor for preventing erosion on metal surfaces. Lauryl succinic acid comprises the same chemical structure as the succinic-acid type surfactants disclosed in the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the lauryl succinic acid of Shanghai Minglan Chemical Co., Ltd. in the composition of Sato for the purpose of preventing erosion on metal surfaces, as disclosed by Shanghai Minglan Chemical Co., Ltd.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanari (KR 20100077023 A): Kanari discloses alkanolamines, aromatic alcohols, and water (see [0019]). Kanari further discloses diethanolamine (see [0025]) at 5-50wt% (see [0027]), benzyl alcohol (see [0036]) at 20-80wt% (see [0038]), and surfactants (see [0047]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights