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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, and 18-20, drawn to an acidic cleaner, classified in C11D 3/042.
II. Claims 9-17, drawn to an alkaline cleaner, classified in C11D 3/044.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have different enzymes and different pH ranges. Prior art that will reject one claim set will not reject the other claim set. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Two separate searches are required for the two different claim sets.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jonathan Kennedy on September 1, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-8 and 18-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 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. The claim is confusing because a phenol group is referred to, which has the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but the structure in claim 3 has the structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
90
148
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R is an alkyl group, and so not a phenol at all. Furthermore, when benzene is present, it is attached to the nitrogen atom with a single methylene group, but R in the formula above may be up to 8 carbon atoms, and so the claim is confusing.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonke et al, US 2004/0087475.
Jonke et al teach a laundry conditioning agent comprising ethoxylated alcohols with from 1 to 12 ethoxy units (claim 8). It is well known that higher degrees of ethoxylation yield higher HLB values well within the range claimed. Enzymes such as protease and esterase may be present (¶97) as well as quaternary ammonium disinfectants such as dioctyldimethyl ammonium chloride (¶111), and these compositions have a preferred pH of from 2.4 to 3 (¶76). It would have been obvious to assemble the three ingredients claimed to form an effective laundry conditioner as the reference contemplates these same ingredients for this purpose.
With respect to claim 5, solvents such as glycerol and propylene glycol may be present (¶50).
With respect to claim 4, citric acid complexing agents may be present (¶80).
With respect to claim 7, this is a product by process limitation. The reference teaches the enzymes claimed and so this limitation is satisfied.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler et al, US 2011/0207648.
Loeffler et al teach an acidic hard surface cleaner comprising 1.2% ethoxylated alcohol C12-18 EO7, amine oxide surfactant, citric acid, and the balance water, wherein the composition has a pH less than 5 (¶97, example 10). Preferred disinfectants include 0.2% C12-14 alkyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride (¶103, example 12), acids may be present in preferred amounts of from 1 to 5% (¶25), suitable organic solvents of the invention include PEG 200-600 (¶49), and enzymes such as protease are suitable additives (¶50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add well known hard surface cleaning additives such as quat disinfectants and enzymes to example 10 with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as all these components are taught as suitable or preferred by the reference.
With respect to claim 7, this is a product by process limitation. The reference teaches the enzymes claimed and so this limitation is satisfied.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al, US 2014/0290694.
Uchiyama et al teach a hard surface cleaner comprising 4% ethoxylated alcohol C11 EO9, xanthan gum thickener, 4.5% citric acid, perfume, and the balance water (¶186, formulation 9), wherein the composition has a pH of from 2-7 (claim 2). Disinfectants, if desired include 1% C10-16 alkyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride (¶89), suitable organic solvents of the invention include propylene glycol (¶102), and enzymes such as protease are suitable additives (¶125). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add well known hard surface cleaning additives such as quat disinfectants and enzymes to formulation 9 with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as all these components are taught as suitable or preferred by the reference.
With respect to claim 7, this is a product by process limitation. The reference teaches the enzymes claimed and so this limitation is satisfied.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karsten et al, US 2012/0213759.
Karsten et al teach a hard surface cleaner comprising 1.58% nonionic surfactant, 3.5% organic acids, 0.5% benzalkonium chloride, thickener, perfume, and the balance water wherein the composition has a pH of 3 (¶53, example E3). Boric acid may be used as enzyme stabilizers (¶49), enzymes such as protease, lipase, and cellulase are suitable additives (¶48), suitable acids include acetic and citric acid (¶31), and ethoxylated alcohols are suitable nonionic surfactants of the invention C12 8EO (¶23). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add well known hard surface cleaning additives such as enzymes to example E3 with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as all these components are taught as suitable or preferred by the reference.
With respect to claim 7, this is a product by process limitation. The reference teaches the enzymes claimed and so this limitation is satisfied.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherry et al, US 6,479,446.
Sherry et al teach a hard surface cleaner comprising 3.25% surfactant, 4.5% citric acid, 0.2% Bardac 208M, glycol ether solvent, perfume, and the balance water wherein the composition has a pH of 3 (col. 11, example 8). Suitable surfactants of the invention are ethoxylated alcohols with up to 30 ethoxy groups (col. 7, lines 10-15), protease is a suitable additive (col. 9, lines 40-45), lipase, and cellulase are suitable additives (¶48), suitable acids include acetic and citric acid (¶31), and ethoxylated alcohols are suitable nonionic surfactants of the invention C12 8EO (¶23). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add well known hard surface cleaning additives such as enzymes to example E3 with confidence of forming an effective hard surface cleaner as all these components are taught as suitable or preferred by the reference.
With respect to claim 7, this is a product by process limitation. The reference teaches the enzymes claimed and so this limitation is satisfied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights