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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 12-20, in the reply filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has amended claims 2-11 to depend on elected claim 12 and cancelled claim 1.
Claims 2-20 will be examined on the merits.
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.
Claims 2-20 are 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 12 recites the limitation "the surfactant booster composition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “[[the]] a surfactant booster composition…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 12.
Claim 2 is further recites” wherein alkyl polyglycoside…” It is unclear whether the recitation “alkyl polyglycoside” referring to the “alkyl polyglycoside” recited in claim 12 or to a different, unrecited alkyl polyglycoside. For purposes of examination, the recitation “alkyl polyglycoside” will be interpreted as “the alkyl polyglycoside…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “further comprising a chelant and/or sequestrant.” It is unclear what is further comprising the chelant and/or sequestrant. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “wherein the surfactant booster composition further comprising a chelant and/or sequestrant.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising an enzyme.” It is unclear what is further comprising the enzyme. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “wherein the surfactant booster composition further comprising an enzyme.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “further comprising an alkalinity source or an acid source.” It is unclear what is further comprising the alkalinity source or an acid source. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “wherein the surfactant booster composition further comprising an alkalinity source or an acid source.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0274857 to Schacht et al.
As to claim 12, Schacht discloses a method of cleaning a filtration membrane (see Schacht paragraphs [0012]-[0013]), comprising: (a) contacting the filtration membrane with a surfactant booster composition comprising: from about 2% to about 30% active of an C4-C24 alkyl polyglycoside (see Schacht paragraph [0053] and [0062] disclosing C6-C30 polyglycoside from about 0.005 to about 5% actives; see also paragraphs [0098]-[0099] disclosing C6-C24 alkylpolyglycosides from about 0 to about 25% by weight); from about 5% to about 60% active of an alkoxylated block copolymer (see Schacht paragraph [0088], [0090] disclosing alkoxylated block copolymer from up to about 15 wt.%); and from about 20 wt.% to about 70 wt.% water (see Schacht paragraph [0066] disclosing water from about 5% to about 90 wt.%); and (b) rinsing the filtration membrane (see, e.g., Schacht paragraph [0015]). Since Schacht discloses the recited compositions and the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 2, Schacht discloses that the alkyl polyglycoside can be a C6-C24 alkyl polyglycoside (see Schacht paragraphs [0098]-[0099] disclosing C6-C24 alkylpolyglycosides; see also MPEP 2144.05(I) where in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists).
As to claim 3, Schacht discloses that the alkyl polyglycoside can be from about 0 to about 25% by weight (see Schacht paragraphs [0098]-[0099] disclosing C6-C24 alkylpolyglycosides from about 0 to about 25% by weight; see also MPEP 2144.05(I) where in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists).
As to claims 4-6, Schacht discloses that the alkoxylated block copolymer can be an EO-PO block copolymer or an EO-PO-EO block copolymer in a concentration up to about 15 wt.% (see Schacht paragraph [0088], [0090]; see also MPEP 2144.05(I) where in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists).
As to claim 7, Schacht further discloses a chelant and/or sequestrant (see Schacht paragraphs [0100]-[0102]).
As to claims 9 and 10, Schacht further discloses an enzyme, such as a protease [Schacht paragraphs [0103]-[0113]).
As to claim 11, Schacht further discloses an alkalinity source or an acid source (see Schacht paragraphs [0068]-[0074]).
As to claim 13, Schacht discloses that that filtration membrane can be part of a micro, ultra, nano and reverse osmosis filtration system (see Schacht paragraph [0115]).
As to claim 14, Schacht discloses that the method can include a pre-rinsing step (see Schacht paragraph [0118]).
As to claim 15, Schacht further discloses an enzyme, such as a protease (see Schacht paragraphs [0103]-[0113]) and/or an alkalinity composition (see Schacht paragraphs [0068]-[0074]).
As to claim 17, Schacht further discloses that the filtration membrane can be contacted with an acidic composition and rinsing the filtration membrane (see Schacht paragraphs [0015], [0067], [0119]-[0121]).
As to claims 18-20, Schacht further discloses that the surfactant booster composition can be diluted with water to form a use solution (see Schacht paragraphs [0086], [0123]-[0144]). While Schacht does not explicitly disclose the concentration after dilution, Schacht discloses that the concentration after dilution is a known, results-effective variable (see Schacht paragraph [0127]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the concentration after dilution through routine experimentation to optimize the membrane cleaning (see Schacht paragraphs [0123]-[0144], in particular paragraph [0127]).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0274857 to Schacht et al. as applied to claims 7 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0112562 to Yannone et al.
Schacht is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 15.
As to claim 8, while Schacht discloses the chelant can be carboxylates or a wide variety of polycarboxylate compounds (see Schacht paragraphs [0100]-[0102]), Schacht does not explicitly disclose that the chelant is an aminocarboxylate. Yannone discloses a similar cleaning method wherein aminocarboxylate is a known chelant (see Yannone paragraph [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use aminocarboxylate as the chelant and the results would have been predictable (see MPEP2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious).
As to claim 16, while Schacht discloses that the enzymes can include proteases in a buffer solution and that in addition to proteases, other enzymes classes can be used (see Schacht paragraphs [0103]-[0113]), Schacht does not explicitly disclose that the enzyme composition can include a lipase. Yannone discloses a similar cleaning method wherein lipase is a known enzyme used for cleaning (see Yannone paragraphs [0008] and [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a lipase as disclosed by Yannone in order to optimize cleaning of the membrane (see, e.g., Yannone paragraph [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights