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 1-20 and 22-24 are pending. Claim 21 has been canceled. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed December 13, 2024, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the polyoxyalkylene condensate surfactant" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required.
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 1-7, 9-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 6,630,440).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Song et al teach a stable aqueous rinse aid dispersion includes a low foaming nonionic surfactant present in a range of from about 2% to about 80% by weight of the rinse aid dispersion, a hydrotrope present in a range of from about 0.5% to about 20% by weight of the rinse aid dispersion, and a partially neutralized poly(meth)acrylic acid polymer present in a range of from about 0.1% to about 15% by weight of the rinse aid dispersion, wherein the polymer is at least 75% non neutralized. See Abstract. Suitable nonionic surfactants include the alkyl ethoxylate condensation products of aliphatic alcohols with from about 1 to about 25 moles of ethylene oxide are suitable for use herein. The alkyl chain of the aliphatic alcohol can either be Straight or branched, primary or secondary, and generally contains from 6 to 22 carbon atoms. Particularly preferred are the condensation products of alcohols having an alkyl group containing from 8 to 20 carbon atoms with from about 2 to about 10 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. Additional nonionic surfactants include ethoxylated C6-C18 fatty alcohols and C6-C18 mixed ethoxylated/propoxylated fatty alcohols are highly preferred surfactants for use herein, particularly where water-soluble. Preferably the ethoxylated fatty alcohols are the C12-C18 ethoxylated fatty alcohols with a degree of ethoxylation of from 3 to 50, most preferably these are the C12-C18 ethoxylated fatty alcohols with a degree of ethoxylation from 3 to 40. Preferably the mixed ethoxylated/propoxylated fatty alcohols have an alkyl chain length of from 10 to 18 carbon atoms, a degree of ethoxylation of from 3 to 30 and a degree of propoxylation of from 1 to 10. The rinse aid formulation of the invention may contain one or a mixture of such low foaming nonionic surfactants. See columns 3 and 4. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of Song et al suggests surfactants having the same HLB as recited by instant claim 11 because Song et al teach surfactants which are the same as recited by the instant claims.
The hydrotrope useful in the present rinse aid dispersion is selected from the group consisting of sodium cumene sulfonate, sodium xylene Sulfonate, sodium toluene sulfonate, dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, alkyl naphthalene sulfonate and dihexyl Sodium sulfosuccinate. Preferably, the hydrotrope is sodium cumene sulfonate. In one embodiment of the rinse aid dispersion, the hydrotrope is present in a range of from about 2% to about 20% by weight of the rinse aid dispersion. In a more specific embodiment, the hydrotrope is present in a range of from about 2% to about 7% by weight of the rinse aid dispersion. See column 5, lines 35-65.
Song et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing an ethoxylated and propoxylated C12 to C18 linear alcohol, an ethoxylated C12 to C15 branched alcohol, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
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 an ethoxylated and propoxylated C12 to C18 linear alcohol, an ethoxylated C12 to C15 branched alcohol, 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 Song et al suggest a composition containing an ethoxylated and propoxylated C12 to C18 linear alcohol, an ethoxylated C12 to C15 branched alcohol, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 6,630,440) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-16, and 22 above, and further in view of Baez Chavez et al (US2011/0207646).
Song et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Song et al do not teach the use of a specific surfactant under the tradename Plurafac LF 300 in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Baez Chavez et al teach a phosphate-free automatic dishwashing detergent composition containing a) a coated bleach particle comprising a core substantially
consisting of bleach and a coating layer enclosing this core and adhering thereto substantially consisting of sodium sulphate; and b) a protease, amylase or a mixture thereof, wherein the composition is preferably free of anionic and/or cationic surfactants. See Abstract. Preferably the composition of the invention comprises a non-ionic surfactant or a non-ionic surfactant system, more preferably the non-ionic surfactant or a non-ionic surfactant system has a phase inversion temperature. Traditionally, non-ionic surfactants have been used in automatic dishwashing for surface modification purposes, in particular for sheeting to avoid filming and spotting and to improve shine. It has been found that non-ionic surfactants can also contribute to prevent redeposition of soils. See paras. 32 and 33. Suitable alkoxylated surfactants include a C2-C18 alcohol alkoxylate having EO, PO and/or BO moieties, specially a C2-C18 alcohol comprising EO and BO moieties such as those under the tradename Plurafac LF 303, etc. See paras. 39-42.
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 surfactant such as Plurafac LF 303 in the composition taught by Song et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Baez Chavez et al teach the use of a surfactant such as Plurafac LF 303 in a similar composition and that such surfactants improve shine and prevent redeposition of soils and further, Song et al teach the use of EO//PO surfactants in general and nonionic surfactants in general.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 6,630,440) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-16, and 22 above, and further in view of Hahn et al (US 9,994,796).
Song et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Song et al do not teach the use of a cationic polymer under the tradename Lugalvan P in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Hahn et al teach composition comprising a polyalkyleneimine and/or salts or derivative thereof for the prevention of corrosion of non-metallic in organic items during a washing or rinsing process, in particular during an automatic dishwashing process. See Abstract. It is preferred that the cleaning and/or rinsing process of the present invention are carried out on non-metallic inorganic items are glassware such as glass, ceramic, glass ceramic and enamel items to prevent corrosion thereof. According to another embodiment the composition used is an automatic dishwashing rinse aid comprising the polyalkyleneimine and/or salt or derivative thereof in an amount of from 0.0005 wt % to 70 wt % of the composition. It has been found that polyalkyleneimines and/or salts or derivatives thereof have especially beneficial properties in the prevention of corrosion of non-metallic inorganic items such as glassware, glass ceramics, ceramics and enamels. See columns 3 and 4. Polyalkyleneimines are commercially available from different suppliers under various trade names e.g., Lugalvan P, etc. See columns 5 and 6.
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 cationic polymer such as Lugalvan P in the composition taught by Song et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Hahn et al teach that the use of a cationic polymer such as Lugalvan P in a similar composition provides beneficial properties in the prevention of corrosion of non-metallic inorganic items in a similar composition for cleaning/rinsing dishware and further, such properties would be desirable in compositions taught by Song et al.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 6,630,440) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-16, and 22 above, and further in view of Kieffer et al (US 8,957,011).
Song et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Song et al do not teach the specific steps of using a rinse aid as recited by the instant claims.
Kieffer et al teach rinse aid compositions and methods for making and using the rinse aid compositions. The compositions of the invention include a sheeting agent, a defoaming agent, and an association disruption agent. The rinse aid compositions of the present invention result in a faster draining/drying time on most substrates compared to conventional rinse aids. The rinse aid compositions of the present invention are especially suitable for use on plastic substrate. See Abstract. The compositions of the present invention can be used to reduce spotting and filming on a variety of surfaces including, but not limited to, plasticware, cookware, dishware, flatware, glasses, cups, hard surfaces, glass surfaces, and vehicle surfaces. In some aspects, Kieffer et al teach methods for rinsing ware in a warewashing application using a rinse aid composition of the present invention. The method can include contacting a selected substrate with the rinse aid composition. The rinse aid can be dispensed as a concentrate or as a use solution. In addition, the rinse aid concentrate can be provided in a solid form or in a liquid form. In general, it is expected that the concentrate will be diluted with water to provide the use solution that is then supplied to the surface of a substrate. The use solution can be applied to the substrate during a rinse application, for example, during a rinse cycle, for example, in a warewashing machine, a car wash application, or the like. In some embodiments, formation of a use solution can occur from a rinse agent installed in a cleaning machine, for example onto a dish rack. The rinse agent can be diluted and dispensed from a dispenser mounted on or in the machine or from a separate dispenser that is mounted separately but cooperatively with the dish machine. See columns 16 and 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dilute the rinse aid composition as taught by Song et al with water and place in the compartment of a dishwashing machine to use during the rinse cycle on substrates such as plastics, glass, etc., with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kiefer et al teach diluting a similar rinse aid composition with water and placing in the compartment of a dishwashing machine to use during the rinse cycle on substrates such as plastics, glass, etc., and further, Song et al teach the use of rinse aids in general and such a use of the rinse aid taught by Song et al would be desirable on various wares.
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/
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights