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 I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on July 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 22, 2026.
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) 1-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,221,823 to Crisanti et al.
As to claim 1, Crisanti discloses a cleaning composition comprising: a solvent system of a mixture of a hydrophobic solvent and a hydrophilic solvent wherein the hydrophobic solvent can be tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether (TGBE) and the hydrophilic solvent can be ethanol (see Crisanti col 3. Line 65 – col. 4, line 54; claim 1). To the extent that it could be argued that Crisanti does not disclose the specific embodiment or example comprising ethanol and TGBE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify the cleaning composition comprising ethanol and TGBE through routine experimentation and because Crisanti discloses both as being a useful hydrophilic and hydrophobic solvent, respectively (see Crisanti col. 4, lines 14-54).
As to claims 2-4, Crisanti discloses that the hydrophobic solvent (TGBE) can comprise 50-99% of the total weight of the solvent mixture and that the hydrophilic solvent (ethanol) can comprise 1-50% of the total weight of the solvent mixture (see Crisanti col. 4, lines 55-67). While Crisanti discloses that the solvent mixture comprises 0.1-10% by weight of the mixture along with 0.1-10% by weight of an acid sequestrant constituent, 1-8% by weight of a surfactant and/or hydrotrope constituent with the balance water (see Crisanti Abstract), Crisanti discloses that the cleaning composition can be formed as a super-concentrate (without water) and thus the weight percentages of the TGBE and ethanol would fall within the claimed ranges (see Crisanti col. 10, lines 15-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to identify the concentrations of the TGBE and ethanol through routine experimentation (see 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 5, Crisanti discloses that the amount of TGBE can be more than an amount of the ethanol by weight (see Crisanti col 4, lines 55-67).
As to claims 9 and 10, Crisanti does not disclose the inclusion of limonene, IPA or silicone and thus is considered as free or substantially free of said components.
As to claim 11, Crisanti discloses the cleaning medium comprising ethanol and TGBE (see rejection to claim 1 above). Applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of the additional components disclosed by Crisanti would materially change the characteristics of Applicant’s invention (see MPEP 2111.03) and until Applicant asserts what or how the components required by the cited prior art affects the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, the “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.”
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,221,823 to Crisanti et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,871,590 to Hei et al.
Crisanti is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 6, Crisanti further discloses that the cleaning medium can comprise further solvents such as propylene glycol monobutyl ether (see Crisanti col. 4, lines 14-30) and also other hydrophobic and hydrophilic solvents, and while Crisanti discloses other hydrophilic solvents such as glycols (see Crisanti col. 4, lines 41-54), Crisanti does not explicitly disclose tripropylene glycol. Hei discloses that it is known in the art to use tripropylene glycol (see Hei col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include tripropylene glycol and the results would have been predictable (see Crisanti col. 4, lines 41-54 and Hei col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 4 containing several overlapping solvents; see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious).
As to claim 7, Crisanti discloses that the composition can include propylene glycol -butyl ether (see Crisanti col. 4, lines 14-30).
As to claim 8, while the combination of Crisanti and Hei does not explicitly disclose that the TGBE is present in an amount of more than about 95 wt% based on the total weight of the TGBE, propylene glycol monobutyl ether, tripropylene glycol and dipropylene glycol butyl ether, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to identify the concentrations of the TGBE, propylene glycol monobutyl ether, tripropylene glycol and dipropylene glycol butyl ether through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Relevant Prior Art
U.S. Patent No. 9,249,378 to De Wit et al. De Wit discloses a cleaning composition comprising ethanol and TGBE (see De Wit col. 15, line 42 – col. 16, line 14).
EP0719323B1 to Kuemin et al. Kuemin discloses a cleaning composition comprising ethanol and TGBE (see Kuemin page 4, lines 14-27 and page 5, lines 12-16).
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0052689 to Armstrong et al. Armstrong discloses an adhesive remover composition comprising ethanol and TGBE (see Armstrong paragraphs [0055]-[0057]).
CN108485825A to Zhang (see machine translation). Zhang discloses a cleaning composition comprising ethanol and TGBE (see Zhang claim 1).
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