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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application claims priority from US provisional application 63/578,686 filed on 8/25/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 08/26/2024, 11/27/2024 and 07/01/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 5 is objected to for the recitation of “one or more….and…” when the proper conjunction may be “and/or” or to remove the “and” and end the claim with “or a combination thereof.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 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.
Claims 1-4 recite the limitation "insoluble solvent" , which is indefinite as it does not define the type of solvent, type of solubility, and does not define what insoluble refers to in terms of the solvent. The specification only indicates that the solvent will be incapable of forming a solution with another substance or substances (paragraph 58), but does not indicate what those other substance(s) are. Thus, there is no standard of what to provide as an insoluble solvent in regards to claim 1. The presence of at least one polar functional group also does not define the solubility as there can still be very hydrophobic compounds with one polar group such as -OH. Although LogP and Topological Polar Surface Area can be indicative or associated with solubility in instances, there may be other factors and characteristics of the compounds affecting solubility.
Claims 6-20 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim without repairing the issue of indefiniteness.
Claim 4 is indefinite for “about 50 or less” as it is unclear if the highest amount should be 50 or if the use of “about” allows the maximum value to be higher than 50.
Claims 6, 7 and 12 recite the limitation "the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant" in the claims with the prior recitation from claim 1 being “at least one alkyl polyglycoside surfactant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend the claims to recite “the at least on alky polyglycoside surfactant” to refer back to claim 1.
Claim 6 is indefinite for reciting where in “a first alky polyglycoside surfactant…. and a second alkyl polyglycoside surfactant” as it is unclear if these are referring to “the at least one alkyl polyglycoside surfactant” introduced in claim 1 or if these represent new alkyl polyglycosides in addition to the at least one alkyl polyglycoside surfactant. Applicant may amend the claim to “wherein the at least one alkyl polyglycoside surfactant comprises a first alkyl polyglycoside surfactant and a second alkyl polyglycoside surfactant, wherein the first alkyl polyglycoside surfactant has an HLB > 10 and the second alkyl polyglycoside surfactant has an HLB < 10.”
Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 10 is indefinite for “the composition has a neutral pH between about 6 to about 9” as it is unclear if this claim is trying to specify “7”, which is the neutral pH or if the applicant desires the pH to be between about 6 to about 9. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider the full range of pH provided in claim 10.
Claim 16 is indefinite for “at least about 15 seconds” as it is unclear if the lowest amount should be 15 or if the use of “about” allows the minimum value to be lower than 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 provides that the first alkyl polyglycoside surfactant has an HLB between about 4-9 and the second alkyl polyglycoside surfactant has an HLB of about 14, while claim 6, on which claim 7 depends, provides that the first alkyl polyglycoside surfactant has an HLB greater than 10 and the second alkyl polyglycoside surfactant has an HLB of less than 10. Claim 7 appears to have swapped the meaning of HLB from what was provided in claim 6 and does not further narrow the ranges for each of these surfactants. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 allows for down to 0 for the range of the co-surfactant and/or co-solvent while claim 1, on which claim 12 depends, requires one or both of these ingredients to be present (i.e. they are not optional in claim 1). Applicant may consider using a non-zero endpoint in this range or reciting “in an amount up to about 80 wt%”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 is a limitation to a use solution made with the composition and not a limitation to the composition itself. Thus, this does not further limit the composition of claim 1. If applicant desires a claim to “A use solution”, then applicant might consider making the claim “A use solution comprising about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% of the composition of claim 1.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao CN 106811320 A (published 6-9-2017) as evidenced by PubChem (Tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether, create date 10-2012).
“Detergent and cleaning “ in the preamble is read as to the intended use of the composition (MPEP 2111.02).
The limitation of “to provide an emulsion” after “a co-surfactant and/or co-solvent” is to a function the co-surfactant and/or co-solvent can help provide, but does not limit the composition to being an emulsion.
Cao teaches “The general hard-surface cleaning agent is composed of the following materials in parts by weight: 3 to 9 parts of alkoxylpolyethylidene oxyethanol, 5 to 12 parts of tripropylene glycol butyl ether, 5 to 8 parts of nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether, 5 to 8 parts of a secondary alcohol ethoxylate surfactant, 3 to 5 parts of isopropanol, 2 to 7 parts of lauryl alcohol polyoxyethylene, 25 to 45 parts of ethanol, 6 to 14 parts of sodium allyl sulphonate, 9 to 14 parts of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 3 to 5 parts of an alkyl polyglycoside surfactant, 3 to 8 parts of N-methylpyrrolidone, 10 to 15 parts of sodium tripolyphosphate, 3 to 5 parts of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, 10 to 15 parts of an iron-sodium diethylenetriamine pentaacetate complex (is a chelator), 5 to 8 parts of trisodium dicarboxymethylalanine, 18 to 23 parts of sodium silicate and 35 to 45 parts of water.” (abstract and example). Embodiment 3 has 10 parts tripropylene glycol butyl ether, 40 parts ethanol and 4 parts APG (alkyl polyglucoside). Tripropylene glycol butyl ether has a logP of 1.9 and Topological polar surface area that is less than 50. PubChem evidences the logP of tripropylene glycol butyl ether is 2.9 and the topological polar surface area is 47.9.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yianakopoulos US 5707957 as evidenced by PubChem (Tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether, create date 10-2012).
“Detergent and cleaning “ in the preamble is read as to the intended use of the composition (MPEP 2111.02).
The limitation of “to provide an emulsion” after “a co-surfactant and/or co-solvent” is to a function the co-surfactant and/or co-solvent can help provide, but does not limit the composition to being an emulsion.
Yianakopoulos teaches a composition comprising a water insoluble organic compound, an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, an alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, an ethoxylated alkyl ether sulfate surfactant, a cosurfactant and water (abstract). Yianakopoulos teaches “it is of a liquid detergent composition in a liquid crystal state which when brought into contact with oily soil is superior to other liquid detergent compositions in detergency and in other physical properties” (field of invention). Yianakopoulos teaches in example 1 (columns 11 and 12) a composition with 11.25 wt% of tripropylene glycol butyl ether, 6 wt% APG and 0.5 wt% glycerol and compositions with 11.25wt% tripropylene glycol butyl ether, 6 wt% APG, glycerol, and surfactants. The example 1 compositions have water to balance. Yianakopoulos teaches APG’s of a formula and “said alkyl groups contain from about 10 to about 18… carbons” (column 10). Yianakopoulos also provides for different species of APGs such as APG1200, APG2000, APG325CS, and APG425SS (column 10). Yianakopoulos teaches “In accordance with the present invention a liquid detergent composition, suitable at room temperature or colder, for pre-treating and cleaning materials soiled with lipophilic soil, is in liquid crystal form and comprises synthetic organic surface active agents, a cosurfactant, a solvent for the soil, and water. The invention also relates to processes for treating items and materials soiled with lipophilic soil with compositions of this invention to loosen or remove such soil, by applying to the locus of such soil on such material a soil loosening or removing amount of an invented composition.” (column 2). Summary of invention mentions hard surface cleaning. PubChem evidences the logP of tripropylene glycol butyl ether is 2.9 and the topological polar surface area is 47.9.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodge US20170183606 as evidenced by PubChem (Tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether, create date 10-2012).
“Detergent and cleaning “ in the preamble is read as to the intended use of the composition (MPEP 2111.02).
The limitation of “to provide an emulsion” after “a co-surfactant and/or co-solvent” is to a function the co-surfactant and/or co-solvent can help provide, but does not limit the composition to being an emulsion.
In regards to claim 18, “further comprises adding a basic alkaline cleaning agent with the composition to remove the soil” will be construed as a basic alkaline ingredient being added to the cleaning composition. If the prior art teaches such an ingredient/agent added in its formulation, it will read on the limitation.
Hodge teaches, in examples, formulations B and G having that have 0.51% and 0.26% Glucopon 425N (C8-C16 alkyl polyglycoside) respectively, 3.1% or 2.3% tripropylene glycol butyl ether respectively, and 0.51% secondary alcohol ethoxylate or Tomadol 901 (a nonionic linear alcohol ethoxylate surfactant), respectively (tables 2A and 2B, paragraphs 33 and 34 and 154). Formulation G also has sodium xylene sulfonate. Formulation B has sodium citrate (a chelating agent) and Formulation G has Na4EDTA (a chelating agent). Both B and G have water. Hodge provides for an alkalinity source and a more preferable pH of about 7 to about 10 (paragraph 48). As applicant claims pH about 6 to about 9 with use of about, the range of 7 to 10 in Hodge anticipates this range. Alkaline sources are listed in paragraphs 49-50 for use in the cleaning composition. Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Paragraphs 139 and 145 provides for ready to use solutions or concentrates. PubChem evidences the logP of tripropylene glycol butyl ether is 2.9 and the topological polar surface area is 47.9.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 9, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge US20170183606 as evidenced by PubChem (Tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether, create date 10-2012).
Hodge teaches the claims as discussed above.
Hodge does not provide an embodiment with a betaine, does not provide an embodiment with about 10 wt% to about 80 wt% of insoluble solvent and does not provide for the temperature at which the application of composition to the soiled surface takes place.
Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52). Hodge notes tripropylene glycol butyl ether as a solvent (paragraph 64) and amounts of solvents of 0.1 to about 15 wt% (paragraph 66).
One of ordinary skill in the prior art before the time of filing would have added betaine amphoteric surfactants as a stabilizing agent, would have been capable of raising the amount of tripropylene glycol butyl ether and used room temperature for application of the composition as room temperature is also recognized for other parts of Hodge’s cleaning process. Further, Hodge does not note either heating or cooling the surface at the application step. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in using the teachings of Hodge in order to produce compositions and methods of cleaning of applicant’s claims by applying teachings of Hodge to modifying its embodiments having the ingredients similar to applicant’s claims.
Claims 7, 9-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao CN 106811320 A (published 6-9-2017) and Hodge US20170183606 as evidenced by PubChem (Tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether, create date 10-2012).
Cao teaches the claims as discussed above.
Cao does not teach betaines or that the soil is a hydrophobic or oily soil, although it provides for surface cleaning.
Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches a pH between 6.5 to 10.5 (paragraph 48). Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other ingredients for cleaning formulations such as betaines and alkalinizing (basic) agents while adjusting the type of alkyl polyglycoside and pH value of the formulation into ranges presented by teachings of Hodge into formulations of Cao, which provides formulations of applicant’s claims for cleaning surfaces. Further, Hodge provides the motivation to use such formulations containing surfactants and alkyl polyglycosides in cleaning oily soils from the surfaces for application times of 1 or 2 minutes while using room temperature in the process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art by teachings of Cao and Hodge would have used its formulation to remove such oily soils while also adjusting time and temperature in ranges of the prior art. Although Hodge does not mention the application of the composition at room temperature, it does not provide for cooling or heating the temperature during application while also allowing the drying to occur at room temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used room temperature for the application as being acceptable for such cleaning methods. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at applicant’s claimed compositions and methods to treat surfaces with oily/hydrophobic soils.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9670433 in view of Hodge US20170183606 (PGPub of ‘433). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides a formulation with alkyl polyglycoside and other ingredients for producing a formulation for cleaning surfaces including with oily soils. Although claims of ‘433 does not particularly mention cosurfactants and/or cosolvents or insoluble solvent, it provides for “a lower alkanol, a lower alkyl ether, a glycol, an aryl glycol ether, a lower alkyl glycol ether, a glycerol ketal, an ester, a hydrocarbon/ester blend, and a dibasic ester” in its claim 20, which would cover cosolvents as well as insoluble solvents as ethanol or isopropanol (a cosolvent) is a lower alkanol, glycol which can include propylene glycol (a cosolvent), and lower alkyl glycol ether is a group that would cover compounds such as tripropylene glycol butyl ether of which ‘433 discloses as species. Claim 19 of Hodge also allows for up to 15 wt% of solvents.
‘433 claims does not teach time of application or betaine.
Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches a pH between 6.5 to 10.5 (paragraph 48). Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other ingredients for cleaning formulations such as betaines and alkalinizing (basic) agents while adjusting the type of alkyl polyglycoside and pH value of the formulation into ranges presented by teachings of Hodge into formulations of ‘433, which provides formulations of applicant’s claims for cleaning surfaces. Further, Hodge provides the motivation to use such formulations containing surfactants and alkyl polyglycosides in cleaning oily soils from the surfaces for application times of 1 or 2 minutes while using room temperature in the process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art by claims of ‘433 and teachings of Hodge would have used its formulation to remove such oily soils while also adjusting time and temperature in ranges of the prior art. Although Hodge does not mention the application of the composition at room temperature, it does not provide for cooling or heating the temperature during application while also allowing the drying to occur at room temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used room temperature for the application as being acceptable for such cleaning methods. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at applicant’s claimed compositions and methods to treat surfaces with oily/hydrophobic soils.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10041021 in view of Hodge US20170183606. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides a formulation with alkyl polyglycoside and other ingredients for producing a formulation for cleaning surfaces including with oily soils. Although claims of ‘021 does not particularly mention cosurfactants and/or cosolvents or insoluble solvent, it provides for “0.01 wt% to about 15 wt%....a lower alkanol, a lower alkyl ether, a glycol, an aryl glycol ether, a lower alkyl glycol ether, a glycerol ketal, an ester, a hydrocarbon/ester blend, and a dibasic ester” in its claim 8, which would cover cosolvents as well as insoluble solvents as ethanol or isopropanol (a cosolvent) is a lower alkanol, glycol which can include propylene glycol (a cosolvent), and lower alkyl glycol ether is a group that would cover compounds such as tripropylene glycol butyl ether of which ‘021 discloses as species.
‘021 claims does not teach time of application or betaine.
Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches a pH between 6.5 to 10.5 (paragraph 48). Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other ingredients for cleaning formulations such as betaines and alkalinizing (basic) agents while adjusting the type of alkyl polyglycoside and pH value of the formulation into ranges presented by teachings of Hodge into formulations of ‘021, which provides formulations of applicant’s claims for cleaning surfaces. Further, Hodge provides the motivation to use such formulations containing surfactants and alkyl polyglycosides in cleaning oily soils from the surfaces for application times of 1 or 2 minutes while using room temperature in the process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art by claims of ‘021 and teachings of Hodge would have used its formulation to remove such oily soils while also adjusting time and temperature in ranges of the prior art. Although Hodge does not mention the application of the composition at room temperature, it does not provide for cooling or heating the temperature during application while also allowing the drying to occur at room temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used room temperature for the application as being acceptable for such cleaning methods. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at applicant’s claimed compositions and methods to treat surfaces with oily/hydrophobic soils.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10781400 in view of Hodge US20170183606. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides a formulation with alkyl polyglycoside and other ingredients for producing a formulation for cleaning surfaces including with oily soils. Although claims of ‘400 does not particularly mention cosurfactants and/or cosolvents or insoluble solvent, it provides for “0.01 wt% to about 15 wt%....a lower alkanol, a lower alkyl ether, a glycol, an aryl glycol ether, a lower alkyl glycol ether, a glycerol ketal, an ester, a hydrocarbon/ester blend, and a dibasic ester” in its claim 11, which would cover cosolvents as well as insoluble solvents as ethanol or isopropanol (a cosolvent) is a lower alkanol, glycol which can include propylene glycol (a cosolvent), and lower alkyl glycol ether is a group that would cover compounds such as tripropylene glycol butyl ether of which ‘400 discloses as species.
‘400 claims does not teach time of application or betaine.
Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches a pH between 6.5 to 10.5 (paragraph 48). Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other ingredients for cleaning formulations such as betaines and alkalinizing (basic) agents while adjusting the type of alkyl polyglycoside and pH value of the formulation into ranges presented by teachings of Hodge into formulations of ‘400, which provides formulations of applicant’s claims for cleaning surfaces. Further, Hodge provides the motivation to use such formulations containing surfactants and alkyl polyglycosides in cleaning oily soils from the surfaces for application times of 1 or 2 minutes while using room temperature in the process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art by claims of ‘400 and teachings of Hodge would have used its formulation to remove such oily soils while also adjusting time and temperature in ranges of the prior art. Although Hodge does not mention the application of the composition at room temperature, it does not provide for cooling or heating the temperature during application while also allowing the drying to occur at room temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used room temperature for the application as being acceptable for such cleaning methods. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at applicant’s claimed compositions and methods to treat surfaces with oily/hydrophobic soils.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11254897 in view of Hodge US20170183606. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides a formulation with alkyl polyglycoside and other ingredients for producing a formulation for cleaning surfaces including with oily soils. Although claims of ‘897 does not particularly mention cosurfactants and/or cosolvents or insoluble solvent, it provides for “0.01 wt% to about 15 wt%....a lower alkanol, a lower alkyl ether, a glycol, an aryl glycol ether, a lower alkyl glycol ether, a glycerol ketal, an ester, a hydrocarbon/ester blend, and a dibasic ester” in its claim 3, which would cover cosolvents as well as insoluble solvents as ethanol or isopropanol (a cosolvent) is a lower alkanol, glycol which can include propylene glycol (a cosolvent), and lower alkyl glycol ether is a group that would cover compounds such as tripropylene glycol butyl ether of which ‘897 discloses as species.
‘897 claims does not teach time of application or betaine.
Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches a pH between 6.5 to 10.5 (paragraph 48). Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other ingredients for cleaning formulations such as betaines and alkalinizing (basic) agents while adjusting the type of alkyl polyglycoside and pH value of the formulation into ranges presented by teachings of Hodge into formulations of ‘897, which provides formulations of applicant’s claims for cleaning surfaces. Further, Hodge provides the motivation to use such formulations containing surfactants and alkyl polyglycosides in cleaning oily soils from the surfaces for application times of 1 or 2 minutes while using room temperature in the process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art by claims of ‘897 and teachings of Hodge would have used its formulation to remove such oily soils while also adjusting time and temperature in ranges of the prior art. Although Hodge does not mention the application of the composition at room temperature, it does not provide for cooling or heating the temperature during application while also allowing the drying to occur at room temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used room temperature for the application as being acceptable for such cleaning methods. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at applicant’s claimed compositions and methods to treat surfaces with oily/hydrophobic soils.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12187983 in view of Hodge US20170183606. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides a formulation with alkyl polyglycoside and other ingredients for producing a formulation for cleaning surfaces including with oily soils. Although claims of ‘983 does not particularly mention cosurfactants and/or cosolvents or insoluble solvent, it provides for “glycerin” in its claims 1 and 10.
‘983 claims does not teach, the insoluble solvent, time of application or betaine.
Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches a pH between 6.5 to 10.5 (paragraph 48). Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other ingredients for cleaning formulations such as betaines and alkalinizing (basic) agents while adjusting the type of alkyl polyglycoside and pH value of the formulation into ranges presented by teachings of Hodge into formulations of ‘983, which provides formulations of applicant’s claims for cleaning surfaces. Further, Hodge provides the motivation to use such formulations containing surfactants and alkyl polyglycosides in cleaning oily soils from the surfaces for application times of 1 or 2 minutes while using room temperature in the process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art by claims of ‘983 and teachings of Hodge would have used its formulation to remove such oily soils while also adjusting time and temperature in ranges of the prior art. Although Hodge does not mention the application of the composition at room temperature, it does not provide for cooling or heating the temperature during application while also allowing the drying to occur at room temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used room temperature for the application as being acceptable for such cleaning methods. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at applicant’s claimed compositions and methods to treat surfaces with oily/hydrophobic soils.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending application 18/962,025 in view of Hodge US20170183606. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides a formulation with alkyl polyglycoside and other ingredients for producing a formulation for cleaning surfaces including with oily soils. Although claims of ‘983 does not particularly mention cosurfactants and/or cosolvents or insoluble solvent, it provides for “glycerin” in its claim 6.
‘025 claims does not teach, the insoluble solvent, time of application or betaine.
Hodge teaches a cleaning composition with alkyl polyglycoside that is able to remove both food soils and hydrocarbon based oily soils (abstract). Hodge teaches an example of a hydrocarbon based oily soil is black soil that is prepared with motor oil, mineral oil, and pigment (paragraph 158). Red soil is taught as lard, corn oil and powdered egg (paragraph 157). Hodge’s formulation is environmentally friendly in that it does not have nonyl phenol ethoxylates. Hodge teaches C8-C16 alkyl polyglycosides as commercially available (paragraphs 26, 30 and 33) with amounts of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph 34). Hodge teaches a pH between 6.5 to 10.5 (paragraph 48). Hodge teaches betaines as stabilizing agents (paragraph 68) and betaines that are amphoteric surfactants (paragraphs 116-118). Hodge teaches placing tiles with soils in test compositions for 1 minute or 2 minutes (paragraph 159 or 161). Hodge teaches in example 1 placing soiled tiles in the composition and then rinsing and drying at room temperature overnight (paragraphs 159-160). Room temperature is approximately 68-72 F. Hodge teaches an alkalinity source further included (claim 14 of Hodge and paragraphs 48-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included other ingredients for cleaning formulations such as betaines and alkalinizing (basic) agents while adjusting the type of alkyl polyglycoside and pH value of the formulation into ranges presented by teachings of Hodge into formulations of ‘025, which provides formulations of applicant’s claims for cleaning surfaces. Further, Hodge provides the motivation to use such formulations containing surfactants and alkyl polyglycosides in cleaning oily soils from the surfaces for application times of 1 or 2 minutes while using room temperature in the process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art by claims of ‘025 and teachings of Hodge would have used its formulation to remove such oily soils while also adjusting time and temperature in ranges of the prior art. Although Hodge does not mention the application of the composition at room temperature, it does not provide for cooling or heating the temperature during application while also allowing the drying to occur at room temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used room temperature for the application as being acceptable for such cleaning methods. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at applicant’s claimed compositions and methods to treat surfaces with oily/hydrophobic soils.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 7915207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for compositions that can have octanoic acid (has logP of 3 and TPSA of 37.3) as the insoluble solvent, alkyl polyglucoside and items like propylene glycol (a cosolvent), water (a diluent) and citric acid (a chelator).
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8080502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for compositions that can have octanoic acid as the insoluble solvent, alkyl polyglucoside and items like propylene glycol (a cosolvent), water (a diluent) and citrate (a chelator).
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8445419. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for compositions that can have octanoic acid as the insoluble solvent, alkyl polyglucoside and items like sorbitan ester (cosurfactant), and citrate (a chelator).
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22 of U.S. Patent No. 8916510. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for compositions that can have octanoic acid as the insoluble solvent, alkyl polyglucoside and items like sorbitan ester (cosurfactant), and citrate (a chelator).
Conclusions
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/MARK V STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights