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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 2, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “including” and insert “comprising”.
With respect to instant claims 4, 17, 18, 21, and 22, it is suggested that Applicant
delete “include” or “includes” and insert “comprise” or “comprises”. Note that, instant claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are 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 7, 8, 17, and 18 contain the trademark/trade name “PC48-sufolaurate”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a surfactant material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dreilinger et al (US 8,268,334).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Dreilinger et al teach highly aqueous liquid acidic hard surface treatment composition having a pH of about 3.5 or less which necessarily comprises: 0.001-3.5% wt. of an acid constituent which comprises one or more organic acids, but which preferably comprises lactic acid and one or more further organic acids acids, and especially preferably wherein the acid constituent consists solely of lactic acid; an organic solvent constituent, desirably selected from a monohydric alcohol and/or a glycol ether; an anionic surfactant constituent, desirably a sulfur atom containing anionic surfactant constituent, such as of the sulfate or sulfonate types; a nonionic surfactant constituent; optionally a cosurfactant constituent, including one or more nonionic, cationic, amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactants; optionally one or more further constituents selected coloring
agents, fragrances and fragrance solubilizers, viscosity modifying agents including one or more thickeners, pH adjusting agents and pH buffers including organic and inorganic salts, optical brighteners, opacifying agents, hydrotropes, abrasives, and preservatives, as well as other optional constituents known to the art; and the balance, water, wherein water comprises at least 80% wt. of the composition. See Abstract. Preferably the
pH of the inventive compositions is between 0.001-3.5, more preferably is between 0.1-3.25, yet more preferably is between 1 and 3.25, and especially preferably is between 2
and 3.2. See column 3, lines 10-25. Exemplary of anionic surfactants which may be present in the anionic surfactant constituent include alcohol sulfates and
sulfonates, alcohol phosphates and phosphonates, alkyl ester sulfates, alkyl diphenyl ether sulfonates, alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, sulfate esters of an alkylphenoxy polyoxyethylene ethanol, alkyl monoglyceride sulfates, alkyl sulfonates, alkyl ether sulfates, alpha-olefin sulfonates, beta-alkoxy alkane sulfonates, alkyl ether sulfonates, ethoxylated alkyl sulfonates, alkylaryl sulfonates, alkylaryl sulfates, alkyl monoglyceride sulfonates, alkyl carboxylates, alkyl ether carboxylates, alkyl alkoxy carboxylates having 1 to 5 moles of ethylene oxide, etc. These anionic surfactants may be provided as salts
with one or more organic counterions, e.g, ammonium, or inorganic counteraions, especially as salts of one or more alkaline earth or alkaline earth metals, e.g, sodium. The anionic surfactant may be present in any effective amount, and advantageously is present in an amount of up to about 5% wt, preferably from about 0.001-4% wt., etc., based on the total weight of the hard surface treatment composition of which itforms a part. See column 5.
The hard surface treatment compositions of the inventio also include a nonionic surfactant constituent which includes one or more nonionic surfactants. One class of exemplary useful nonionic surfactants are polyethylene oxide condensates of alkyl phenols. These compounds include the condensation products of alkyl phenols having an alkyl group containing from about 6 to 12 carbon atoms in either a straight chain or branched chain configuration with ethylene oxide, the ethylene oxide being present in
an amount equal to 5 to 25 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alkyl phenol. Further useful nonionic surfactants include the condensation products of aliphatic alcohols with from about 1 to about 60 moles of ethylene oxide. The alkyl chain of the aliphatic alcohol can either be straight or branched, primary or secondary, and generally contains from about 8 to about 22 carbon atoms. Further useful nonionic surfactants include alkylpolyglucosides. These materials may also be referred to as alkyl monoglucosides and alkylpolyglucosides. The nonionic surfactant constituent may be present in any
effective amount, and advantageously is present in an amount of up to about 5% wt, preferably from about 0.001-4% wt., yet more preferably between about 0.25-3% wt. based on the total weight of the hard surface treatment composition of which it forms a part. See column 6 to column 12.
The compositions according to the invention are desirably provided as a ready to use product which may be directly applied to a hard surface. Hard surfaces which are to be particularly denoted are lavatory fixtures, lavatory appliances (toilets, bidets, shower stalls, bathtubs and bathing appliances), wall and flooring surfaces especially those which include refractory materials and the like. Accordingly the inventive compositions are desirably provided as a ready to use product in a manually operated spray dispensing container, or may be supplied in aerosolized product wherein it is discharged from a pressurized aerosol container. Propellants which may be used are well known and conventional in the art and include, for example, a hydrocarbon, of from 1 to 10 carbon atoms, such as n-propane, n-butane, isobutane, n-pentane, etc. Compressed gases such as carbon dioxide, compressed air, nitrogen, and possibly dense or supercritical fluids may also be used. In such an application, the composition is dispensed by activating the release nozzle of said aerosol type container onto the area in need of treatment. See columns 15 and 16. Specifically, Dreilinger et al teach a composition containing 2.5% of lactic acid (80%), 0.12% citric acid, 12.% C10 alcohol ethoxylated 8EO (85%), 1% alkyl polyglucoside (50%), 1.67% sodium C14-C17 secondary alkyl sulfonate (60%), 0.25% fragrance, 0.0016% colorant, 0.38% sodium hydroxide (50%), and having a pH of approximately 3. See Table 1, column 18. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the compositions as specifically taught by Dreilinger et al would inherently provide the same corrosion protection properties to the interior surface of a metal container as recited by the instant claims because Dreilinger et al teach compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Dreilinger et al disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of Dreilinger et al anticipate the material limitations of the independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreilinger et al (US 8,268,334).
Dreilinger et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dreilinger et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing lactic acid, an alpha olefin sulfonate, an alkyl polyglycoside, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing lactic acid, an alpha olefin sulfonate, an alkyl polyglycoside, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Dreilinger et al suggest a composition containing lactic acid, an alpha olefin sulfonate, an alkyl polyglycoside, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreilinger et al (US 8,268,334) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of WO2021/198873.
Dreilinger et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dreilinger et al do not teach the use of a metal/aluminum can as a container for the cleaning composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘873 teaches a device containing a spray container, a propellant and a detergent composition wherein the container is made of a material such as aluminum, steel, stainless steel, etc. The use of the device may be for cleaning hard surfaces, for descaling, for sanitizing hard surfaces, etc. See Abstract and page 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to package the composition as taught by Dreilinger et al in a metal/aluminum can, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘873 teaches the use of a metal/aluminum can for packaging a similar composition and further, Dreilinger et al teach the use of aerosol containers in general.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreilinger et al (US 8,268,334) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Olson et al (US2022/0290071).
Dreilinger et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dreilinger et al do not teach the use of a sodium xylene sulfonate in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Olson et al teach multipurpose acidic compositions for cleaning and/or sanitizing. Methods for using the acidic compositions for removing polymerized oils, carbonized soils, fats, oils, stains (e.g., coffee and tea), hard water scale/deposits, and cosmetics are also provided. See Abstract. The multipurpose acidic compositions can optionally
include a hydrotrope as an additional functional ingredient. Hydrotropes aid in compositional stability and aqueous formulation. Functionally speaking, the suitable
hydrotrope couplers which can be employed are non-toxic and retain the active ingredients in aqueous solution throughout the temperature range and concentration to which a concentrate or any use solution is exposed. A preferred hydrotrope is sodium xylene sulfonate (SXS). See paras. 70-74.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydrotrope such as sodium xylene sulfonate in the composition taught by Dreilinger et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Olson et al teach that the use of a hydrotrope such as sodium xylene sulfonate in a similar composition help retain the active ingredients in solution and further, Dreilinger et al teach the use of hydrotropes in general and such properties would be desirable in the composition taught by Dreilinger et al.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreilinger et al (US 8,268,334) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19, and further in view of WO2021/198873 and Olson et al (US2022/0290071).
Dreilinger et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dreilinger et al do not teach the use of a sodium xylene sulfonate or the use of a metal/aluminum can as a container for the cleaning composition in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘873 and Olson et al are relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydrotrope such as sodium xylene sulfonate in the composition taught by Dreilinger et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Olson et al teach that the use of a hydrotrope such as sodium xylene sulfonate in a similar composition help retain the active ingredients in solution and further, Dreilinger et al teach the use of hydrotropes in general and such properties would be desirable in the composition taught by Dreilinger et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to package the composition as taught by Dreilinger et al in a metal/aluminum can, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘873 teaches the use of a metal/aluminum can for packaging a similar composition and further, Dreilinger et al teach the use of aerosol containers in general.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, 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
/G.R.D/August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights