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 12/16/2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
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.
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 1-2, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (US20150052689A1) hereinafter Armstrong.
Armstrong teaches an adhesive remover composition and methods of their use (see Abstract). With regards to claim 1, Armstrong teaches a composition comprising 8-94 wt% glycol ether solvents, 6-90 wt% surfactant, and water (see [0054]). The use of TERGITOL™ 15-S-15, a C12-C14 secondary alcohol ethoxylate 15 mols EO surfactant, is taught in Table 2. As noted in the instant Specification, TERGITOL™ 15-S-15 surfactant has a cloud point of greater than 100 C (see Table 1). Armstrong also teaches the use of Hexyl CELLOSOLVE ™, DOWANOL TPnB ™, DOWANOL EPH™, DOWANOL PPH™ among other glycol ether solvents (see [0057]). Hexyl CELLOSOLVE ™ and DOWANOL TPnB ™ are also noted in the instant Specification as appropriate glycol ethers with HLB less than 6.5 (see Table 1).
Although Armstrong does not disclose TERGITOL™ 15-S-15, DOWANOL TPnB ™ or Hexyl CELLOSOLVE ™ glycol ether solvents, in the recited weight ranges in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these limitations in the correct weight ranges based on the general teachings of Armstrong. This combination would have provided the added benefit of enhanced soil removal (see [0055]). Additionally, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the surfactant weight range in inventive composition to at least 25wt% because Armstrong teaches the use of each nonionic surfactant from about 2-30 wt% each (see [0063]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have been motivated to optimize the glycol ether solvent to a weight range of 25-75 wt% because Armstrong explicitly teaches the composition can include 25-75 wt% of a solvent system, such as glycol ethers (see [0058]). Optimization of components would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan in order to obtain the most effective detergent composition, absent a showing otherwise. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 2, TERGITOL™ 15-S-15 is a nonionic secondary alcohol ethoxylate surfactant (see [0163]).
With regards to claim 7, Hexyl CELLOSOLVE ™ is diethylene glycol mono hexyl ether and DOWANOL TPnB ™ is tripropylene glycol mono n-butyl ether as noted in the instant Specification (see Table 1).
With regards to claim 8, TERGITOL™ 15-S-15 is a C12-C14 secondary alcohol ethoxylate 15 mols EO surfactant as noted in the instant Specification (see Table 1).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong as applied to claims 1-2, and 7-11 above, and further in view of Blattner et. al (US20190153362A1) hereinafter Blattner.
The general teachings of Armstrong are recited above. With regards to claim 9, Armstrong teaches an exemplary adhesive remover composition comprising 9.5 wt% DOWANOL TPnB™ and 16.15 wt% TERGITOL™ 15-S-15 surfactant among others (see Table 2). Armstrong also teaches an alkalinity source, such as alkali metal phosphate salts, to be present between 1600-2880 ppm (0.16-0.29 wt%) in the composition (see [0150]; see also [0130]). Armstrong teaches diluting an adhesive composition to a use-solution such that the “use solution may contain the adhesive remover composition diluted to the desired concentration” (see [0049]). Armstrong also teaches the use of the adhesive composition in a washing machine which is known to further dilute the adhesive composition by adding water. However, Armstrong does not explicitly disclose the exact dilution ratio for the use-solution.
Blattner teaches a hard surface cleaning composition comprising surfactant, solvents, and water (see Abstract). The explicit use of TERGITOL™ 15-S-7 secondary alcohol ethoxylate surfactant (see [0057]), and DOWANOL TPnB™ glycol ether solvent (see Table C [0112]) are taught. Blattner teaches the cleaning composition concentrate can be diluted with water in a ratio of 1:256 (see [0086]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a cleaning mixture comprising of 0.01-2 wt% of a cleaning composition and water of the instant claim to be functionally equivalent to a 50-10,000 (100/2:100/0.01) dilution of the cleaning composition.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have diluted to the adhesive composition of Table 2 taught by Armstrong in the dilution ratio taught by Blattner. This would have the added benefit of being in a flowable form so that it can be pumped or aspirated (see [0064]).
With regards to claims 10-11, Armstrong teaches a method of using the adhesive composition by contacting a soiled textile with the composition, and washing at temperatures between 100-200 F (about 38-93 C) (see claim 13; see also [0148]). The textile can comprise of polyester and polyamide fibers, both polymeric materials (see [0047]). The cleaning mixture of the instant claim, comprising of 0.01-2wt% of a composition which further comprises of a 25-75 wt% surfactant with a cloud point of greater than 60C (such as TERGITOL™ 15-S-15) and of a 25-75 wt% glycol ether solvent with an HLB of less than 7.5 (such as DOWANOL TPnB ™), and 0.01-0.29 wt% alkali salt are suggested by the general teachings of Armstrong in view of Blattner. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the general inventive composition in the method taught by Armstrong for the benefit of enhanced cleaning and improved soil removal performance of the method (see [0106]).
Conclusion
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
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights