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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/01/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/31/2026.
The objection of claim 6 is withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley (US20250304882A1) as evidence by Polyox WSR N3000 CHEMPOINT and Polyox WSR N3000 SDS 2023 is maintained for reasons of record in the previous Office Action.
The rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley (US20250304882A1) in view of Antonelli (EP3670639A1) is maintained for reasons of record in the previous Office Action.
The nonstatuatory double patenting rejection of claims 1-15 over claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,497,576B2 is maintained for the reasons of record in the previous Office Action.
The nonstatuatory double patenting rejection of claims 1-15 over claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,448,587B2 is maintained for the reasons of record in the previous Office Action.
The nonstatuatory double patenting rejection of claims 1-15 over claims 1-15 of co-pending US Application 18/866,576 is maintained for the reasons of record in the previous Office Action.
The nonstatuatory double patenting rejection of claims 1-10, and 12-15 over claims 1-15 of co-pending US Application 18/866,584 is maintained for the reasons of record in the previous Office Action.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1, 6, and 9 are currently amended. Please note, the claims status identifier for claim 1 should read “currently amended.”
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have fully been considered (see Remarks, pages 5-8) but have not been found persuasive.
The Applicant argues the inventive composition is patentably distinct from the composition taught by Foley because Foley’s preferred embodiments comprise LAS anionic surfactant (see Remarks, page 5-6). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the preferred embodiment of Foley can comprise LAS surfactant, the teachings of Foley do not require the presence of LAS anionic surfactant in the composition. The co-surfactant may be selected from the group consisting of alkyl alkoxylated sulfates, alkyl sulfates, linear alkyl benzenesulfonates, and mixtures thereof (see claim 9).
The examiner also asserts the addition of the BCI limitation of at least 0.85 to claim 1 does not make the inventive composition patentably distinct from the prior art. The BCI is an inherent property of the surfactant system. Hence, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the BCI to fall within the clamed range of at least 0.85 since the surfactant system taught by Foley is equivalent to the surfactant system of the instant composition. Therefore, the general teachings of Foley suggest the limitations of the inventive composition of claim 1.
The method of claims 13-15 for cleaning stainless steel hard surfaces using the inventive composition is obvious over Foley in view of Antonelli because the composition is obvious over the general teachings of Foley and the method is obvious over the general teachings of Antonelli.
Applicant argues unexpected results. Applicant argues their invention found compositions free of LAS found water sheeting on stainless steel surfaces has added benefit that this is not found in the art.
The examiner asserts that applicant’s results of no water splitting on stainless steel surfaces (see Tables 2-3 Specification) are not commensurate in scope with newly amended claim 1, as required in MPEP 716.02(d). Instant claim 1 requires 8-30 wt% of a surfactant comprising a primary anionic surfactant where R1 is saturated or unsaturated C8-C16 alkyl chain, and 1-18 units of EO; a secondary betaine surfactant; 0.1-5 wt% inorganic salt selected from NaCl, MgSO4, and Na2SO4; and one or more enzymes. In Sample formulations 1-16 comprise of 6.24 wt% of SLES, 1.57-2.7 wt% of CAPB, and 1 wt% Na2SO4. Therefore, the applicant has not shown that the unexpected results occur over the entire claim range.
The examiner notes that applicant has requested that the obviousness-type double patenting rejections over US Patent No. 12,497,576 and 12,448,587 and co-pending Application No. 18/866,576 and 18/866,884 be held in abeyance until an indication of allowable subject matter in the instant application is identified.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights