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 1-22 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16 and 22, drawn to a cleaning composition, classified in C11D; 1/22.
II. Claims 17-21, drawn to a method of cleaning a surface, classified in B08B; 3/08.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product of Group I can be used in a materially different process such as an insecticide in a method of treating plants/crops.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
1) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
2) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
3) The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
4) The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Sally Teng on September 4, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16 and 22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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, 6, 13, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dkidak et al (US 2017/0015946).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Dkidak et al teach liquid cleaning compositions that are suitable for cleaning household surfaces. In particular, such compositions are particularly useful for removing stains, especially hydrophobic stains, and most especially hydrophobic stains selected from the group consisting of: oils, fats, polymerized grease, and mixtures thereof. The method of cleaning is particularly suited for cleaning surfaces, particularly those found in households, especially domestic households. Surfaces to be cleaned include kitchens and bathrooms, e.g., floors, walls, tiles, windows, cupboards, sinks, showers, shower plastified curtains, wash basins, WCs, fixtures and fittings and the like made of different materials like ceramic, vinyl, no-wax vinyl, linoleum, melamine, glass, steel, kitchen work surfaces, any plastics, plastified wood, metal or any painted or varnished or sealed surface and the like. Household hard surfaces also include household appliances including, but not limited to refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, automatic dryers, ovens, microwave ovens, dishwashers and so on. Such hard surfaces may be found both in private households as well as in commercial, institutional and industrial environments. See paras. 111-112. The compositions contain glycol ether solvents such as diethylene glycol n-butyl ether, etc., in amounts less than 10% by weight. See paras. 15-37. The composition may comprise from 30% to 99.5% by weight of the total composition of water, preferably from 40% to 98% and more preferably from 50% to 85%. See para. 140.
The liquid cleaning composition comprises a surfactant. Preferably, the liquid cleaning composition comprises greater than 3% by weight of a surfactant. Preferably,
the composition comprises surfactant at a level of from 3% to 60%, more preferably from 5% to 50% and most preferably from 8% to 40% by weight of the composition. See para. 51. The surfactant system preferably comprises an anionic surfactant, more preferably an alkoxylated sulfate anionic surfactant. The system can optionally comprise an amphoteric, zwitterionic, nonionic surfactant and mixtures thereof. Suitable anionic surfactants are alkyl ethoxylated surfactants having a C8-C22 alkyl group and 0.2 to 4 moles of ethylene oxide. See paras. 53-60. Preferred zwitterionic surfactants are betaines such as cocoamidopropyl betaine, etc. See para. 83. The liquid cleaning composition preferably comprises a chelating agent or crystal growth inhibitor. See para. 86. Suitable chelating agents include aminocarboxylates such as EDTA and alkali metals salts thereof, etc., which may be present in amounts from 0.05% to 5% by weight. See paras. 85-91. The liquid compositions may comprise a variety of other optional ingredients depending on the technical benefit aimed for and the surface treated. Suitable optional ingredients for use herein include perfume, preservatives, etc. See para. 110. The composition may be applied using a spray dispenser (i.e., spray bottle). See para. 125. Specifically, Dkidak et al teach a composition containing 2.6% sodium paraffin sulfonate, 2% C12-C14 betaine, 4% propylene glycol n-propyl ether, 0.25% diethylenetriamine pentaacetate, water, etc. See paras. 142. Dkidak et al disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of Dkidak et al anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims.
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dkidak et al (US 2017/0015946).
Dkikak et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dkidak et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing cocoamidopropyl betaine, an alkyl or alkyl ether sulfate surfactant, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, tetrasodium EDTA, water, a preservative, a fragrance, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Nonetheless 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 cocoamidopropyl betaine, an alkyl or alkyl ether sulfate surfactant, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, tetrasodium EDTA, water, a preservative, a fragrance, 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 Dkidak et al suggest a composition containing cocoamidopropyl betaine, an alkyl or alkyl ether sulfate surfactant, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, tetrasodium EDTA, water, a preservative, a fragrance, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. Note that, with respect to instant claim 14, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mix the preservative with the water and then add other ingredients to the composition. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C.); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See Also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performed process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dkidak et al (US 2017/0015946) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-16, and 22 above, and further in view of Blattner et al (US 2013/0072419).
Dkidak et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dkidak et al do not teach the use of a preservative such as benzisothiazolinone (BIT) or deionized water in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Blattner et al teach a hard surface cleaning composition containing water, glycerine, and alkyl polyglycoside, etc. See para. 10. The water may be deionized water. See para. 89. A preservative may be used in the composition in amounts from 0.001% to about 1% by weight, wherein suitable preservatives include 1,2-benzisothiazoline-3-one (BIT), etc. See para. 123.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use deionized water in the composition taught by Dkidak et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Blattner et al teach the use of deionized water in a similar composition and further, Dkidak et al teach the use of water in general.
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 preservative such as benzisothiazolinone (BIT) in the composition taught by Dkidak et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Blattner et al teach the use of a preservative such as benzisothiazolinone (BIT) in a similar composition and further, Dkidak et al teach the use of preservatives in general.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dkidak et al (US 2017/0015946) in view of Blattner et al (US 2013/0072419) as applied to claims 1-10, 13-16, and 22 above, and further in view of EP 4,105,307.
Dkidak et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dkidak et al do not teach the use of a preservative such as benzisothiazolinone (BIT), deionized water, or a fragrance with citrus or orange aroma in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Blattner et al are relied upon as set forth above.
‘307 teachesconcentrates to be diluted with water for hard surface cleaning purposes, in particular manual dishwashing purposes, comprising at least one fatty alcohol ether sulfate and at least one betaine in a weight ratio in the range of about 40:60 to about 65:35 in an amount of fatty alcohol ether sulfate and betaine together of about 25 to about 50 wt.-%, and further at least one alkyl polyglycoside in an amount of about 2 to about 15 wt.-%. See Abstract. In various embodiments, the composition comprises a perfume. Suitable perfumes include perfume oils such as orange oil, orange peel oil, etc. The amount of perfume in the compositions according to the present invention may be up to 5 wt.-%, in particular about 0.01 wt.-% to about 5 wt.-%, more preferably about 0.1 to about4 wt.-%, based on the total weight of the composition. See paras. 84-89.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use deionized water in the composition taught by Dkidak et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Blattner et al teach the use of deionized water in a similar composition and further, Dkidak et al teach the use of water in general.
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 preservative such as benzisothiazolinone (BIT) in the composition taught by Dkidak et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Blattner et al teach the use of a preservative such as benzisothiazolinone (BIT) in a similar composition and further, Dkidak et al teach the use of preservatives in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an orange oil as a perfume in the composition taught by Dkidak et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘307 teaches the use of orange oil as a perfume in a similar composition and further, Dkidak et al teach the use perfumes in general.
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/September 15, 2026
