DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The first paragraph of the specification should be amended to recite that U.S. Serial No. 17/646,531, filed December 30, 2021, has issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,187,983.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner construes the limitation, “wherein the composition/cleaner is substantially free of butyl cellosolve” that is recited in independent claims 1 and 11 to mean that the composition contains less than 0.5% by weight of butyl cellosolve, as defined by applicant in paragraph 18 of the instant specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Billman, US 2006/0094619.
Billman, US 2006/0094619, discloses a foamy composition for treating stains on fabrics comprising a blend of nonionic surfactants containing 0.5-4.5% by weight of a linear primary alcohol ethoxylate containing 3 moles of ethylene oxide and a carbon chain length of 14-18 and 0.5-4.5% by weight of a linear primary surfactant containing 12 moles of ethylene oxide and a carbon chain length of 12-14 in a ratio of 1:0.75 to 1:1.5 (see abstract and paragraphs 11-18), 1-7% by weight of a foaming agent, such as polyglucoside surfactants having an alkyl chain length of 8-16 (see paragraphs 20-21), solvents, such as a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerin in a ratio of 3:1 to 1:3 (see paragraphs 32-34), 0% by weight of Dowanol DB (i.e., butyl cellosolve; see paragraphs 30-31), and adjunct ingredients, such as pH adjusting agents, enzymes, fragrances, dyes and antibacterial agents (see paragraph 43), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples in Tables I and II. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are anticipated by Billman, US 2006/0094619.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,187,983. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,187,983 claims a similar hard surface cleaner comprising 0.05-10% by weight of an alkyl polyglycoside containing 6-20 carbon atoms in the alkyl group, 0.1-15% by weight of a nonionic system containing a linear alcohol ethoxylate and a second nonionic surfactant, glycerine, water, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,187,983), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,187,983.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,254,897. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,254,897 claims a similar hard surface cleaner comprising 0.1-10% by weight of an alkyl polyglycoside containing 8-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl group, 0.5-8% by weight of a water conditioning agent, 0.1-15% by weight of a nonionic system containing a linear alcohol ethoxylate containing a carbon chain length of 9-12, a second nonionic surfactant, solvents, such as glycerol ketal, water, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,254,897), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,254,897.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,781,400. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 10,781,400 claims a similar hard surface cleaner comprising 0.1-10% by weight of an alkyl polyglycoside containing 8-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl group, 0.5-8% by weight of a water conditioning agent, 0.1-15% by weight of a nonionic system containing a linear alcohol ethoxylate containing a carbon chain length of 9, a second ethoxylated nonionic surfactant containing a carbon chain length of 9-16, 70-99% by weight of water, solvents, such as glycerol ketal, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,781,400), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,781,400.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,041,021. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 10,041,021 claims a similar hard surface cleaner comprising 0.1-10% by weight of an alkyl polyglycoside containing 8-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl group, 0.5-8% by weight of a water conditioning agent, 0.1-15% by weight of a nonionic system containing a linear alcohol ethoxylate containing a carbon chain length of 9, a second ethoxylated nonionic surfactant containing a carbon chain length of 9-16, 70-99% by weight of water, solvents, such as glycerol ketal, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,041,021), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,041,021.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,670,433. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 9,670,433 claims a similar hard surface cleaner comprising 0.05-10% by weight of an alkyl polyglycoside containing 8-14 carbon atoms in the alkyl group, 0.5-8% by weight of a water conditioning agent, 0.1-15% by weight of a nonionic system containing a linear alcohol ethoxylate containing a carbon chain length of 9, a second ethoxylated nonionic surfactant containing a carbon chain length of 9-12, a hydrotrope, a stabilizing agent, 70-99% by weight of water, solvents, such as glycerol ketal, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,670,433), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,670,433.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights