Claims 1,7-13, 15, 21, 26-28, 30-35 and 37 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2 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.
3 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.
Claims 12-13, 15, 21, 26-28, 31, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Farmer et al. (US 20210108160 A1).
Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) teaches a method for cleaning a contaminant from a surface, wherein the method comprises applying a cleaning composition to the surface, wherein the cleaning composition comprises biosurfactants include sophorolipids and mannosylerythritol lipids as claimed in claims 12 and 27 (see claim 1 and 16) and wherein the cleaning composition also comprises surfactants (see page 3, paragraph, 0035) and solvents (see page 7, paragraph, 0110) and wherein the cleaning method comprises the step of removing the cleaning composition and the contaminant from the surface as claimed in claim 12 (see claim 1), wherein the cleaning composition is applied to the surface by spraying as claimed in claim 13 (see claim 2), and wherein the spraying is achieved using a pressurized spraying device and wherein the composition is sprayed at a pressure of 1,000 psi to 7,000 psi as claimed in claim 15 (see claim 4), wherein the cleaning composition and the contaminant comprises rinsing or spraying water onto the surface as claimed in claimed 21 (see claim 8), wherein the surfaces include walls as claimed in claim 26 (see page 9, paragraph, 0133), wherein sophorolipids present in the cleaning composition in the concentration of about 1-3% or 1-1.5% as claimed in claim 28 (see page 11, paragraph, 0168), wherein the cleaning composition also comprises solvents include glycol ethers and d-limonene as claimed in claims 31 and 35 (see page 7, paragraph, 0110) and wherein the contaminants include cooking grease (food particles) as claimed in claim 37 (see page 3, paragraph, 0049). Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) teaches all the limitations of the claims. Hence, Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4 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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (US 20210108160 A1) in view of Eppler et al. (WO 2017059136 A1).
Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) teaches a method for cleaning a contaminant from a surface, wherein the method comprises applying a cleaning composition to the surface, wherein the cleaning composition comprises biosurfactants include sophorolipids and mannosylerythritol lipids and surfactants as claimed (see claim 1 and 16), wherein the cleaning composition also comprises surfactants (see page 3, paragraph, 0035) and wherein the cleaning composition also comprises solvents (see page 7, paragraph, 0110).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of teaching Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising lauramine oxide as a surfactant as claimed in claim 30.
Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1) in another analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising lauramine oxide as claimed in claim 30 (see page 15, paragraph, 0056).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the cleaning composition of Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) by incorporating the lauramine oxide as taught by Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of lauramine oxide as taught by Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous detergent composition taught by Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1), absent unexpected results.
5 Claims 32, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (US 20210108160 A1) in view of Rieth et al. (US 2015/0252302 A1).
The disclosure of Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) as described above, does not teach the claimed solvents as recited in claims 32, 33 and 34.
Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1) in analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising solvents include butyl glycol (monobutyl glycol) as claimed in claim 32 (see page 21, paragraph, 0273), dibasic esters include dimethyl succinate and diethyl succinate (dialkyl succinate) as claimed in claim 33 (see page 6, paragraph, 0111) and ketone solvents include methyl isobutyl ketone as claimed in claim 34 (see page 6, paragraph, 0107).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1), it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the cleaning composition of Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) by incorporating the solvents as taught by Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention, based on the teaching of Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1) that suggested the use of organic solvents in the cleaning compositions, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of organic solvents as taught by Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Farmer et al. (US’ 160 A1), absent unexpected results.
6 Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (US 20200199492 A1) in view of Eppler et al. (WO 2017059136 A1).
Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1) teaches a cleaning composition comprising biosurfactants include sophorolipids and mannosylerythritol lipid (see claim 18) and organic solvents include glycol ethers (see claim 24) and wherein the cleaning composition also comprises acids include boric acid as claimed in claim 11 (see claim 22).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising lauramine oxide.
Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1) in another analogous are of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising lauramine oxide as claimed in claim 1 (see page 15, paragraph, 0056) and wherein the cleaning composition also comprises solvents include limonene as claimed in claim 10 (see page 14, paragraph, 0055).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the cleaning composition of Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1) by incorporating the lauramine oxide as taught by Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of lauramine oxide as taught by Eppler et al. (WO 136 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous detergent composition taught by Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1), absent unexpected results.
7 Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (US 20200199492 A1) in view of Eppler et al. (WO 2017059136 A1) and further, in view of Rieth et al. (US 2015/0252302 A1).
The disclosures of Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1) and Eppler et al. (WO’136 A1) as described above, do not teach the solvent species as claimed in claims 7-9.
Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1) in other analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising solvents include butyl glycol (monobutyl glycol) as claimed in claim 7 (see page 21, paragraph, 0273), dibasic esters include dimethyl succinate and diethyl succinate (dialkyl succinate) as claimed in claim 8 (see page 6, paragraph, 0111) and ketone solvents include methyl isobutyl ketone as claimed in claim 9 (see page 6, paragraph, 0107).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to modify the cleanings compositions of Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1) and Eppler et al. (WO’136 A1) by incorporating the solvents as taught by Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention, based on the teaching of Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1) and Eppler et al. (WO’136 A1) that suggested the use of organic solvents in the cleaning compositions, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of organic solvents as taught by Rieth et al. (US’ 302 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning compositions taught by Xue et al. (US’ 492 A1) and Eppler et al. (WO’136 A1), absent unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
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.
/EISA B ELHILO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights