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
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 11, 2026. The examiner acknowledges claim 12 was not included in the original restriction requirement, but as it is a kit for accomplishing the method, and includes three polymers not present in the composition claims, but present in the method claims, it is properly grouped with the method claims.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 11, 12, and 15-18 of Application No. 16/434857. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 9 and 10 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. Claims 9 and 10 refer to first and second amines, but there is no antecedent basis for these limitations in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Altier et al, US 2019/0316064.
Altier et al teach a cleaning composition comprising up to 30% Steposol MET-10U (dimethyl-9-decenamide) and up to 30% monoethanolamine (¶76, experimental composition #2). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hunt et al, US 2017/0240846.
Hunt et al teach a label removing composition comprising triphosphono methyl amine, ethylenediamine EO-PO, and 1.39% Steposol MET-10U (dimethyl-9-decenamide) (page 21, table 5, formula 38-2). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Acra et al, US 9,650,594.
Acra et al teach a semiconductor cleaning composition comprising 40% tetraethylpentamine, 26% monoethanolamine, 24.4% dimethyl-9-decenamide (col. 21, example 36). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
Claims 1, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Panayi et al, US 2018/0139955.
Panayi et al teach an herbicide concentrate with an amine/amide solvent mixture comprising triethylamine and Hallcomid 1025 (dimethyl-9-decenamide) (¶315, example 38). Note the reference defines Hallcomid 1025 as a decanamide, but this is an error. As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
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, 2, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chetty et al, US 2018/0153160.
Chetty et al teach an herbicide concentrate with an amine/amide solvent mixture comprising N-methylpyrrolidone (satisfies the first solvent as it is a heterocyclyl alkyl with a nitrogen atom), hexyloxypropyl amine, and Hallcomid M8-10 (dimethyl decanamide) (¶218, examples 28-31). Suitable amines of the invention include monoethanolamine (¶32), and suitable amide solvents are dimethyl-9-decenamide (¶48), present in amounts as little as 25% (¶33). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use monoethanolamine and dimethyl-9-decenamide in examples 28-31 with confidence of forming an effective herbicide concentrate as mixtures of amines and amide solvents are essential, and monoethanolamine and dimethyl-9-decenamide are taught as suitable amine and amide solvents of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights