Ex Parte Wasan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12293714 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/293,714 11120/2008
27752 7590 02/18/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Patent Services - Legal IP
Central Building, CS
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Darsh T. Wasan
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10342X 3464
EXAMINER
ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1767
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARSH T. W ASAN, ALEX D. NIKOLOV, MICHAEL RAY
McDONALD, and STACIE ELLEN HECHT
Appeal2013-005875
Application 12/293,714
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and RICHARD M.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims directed to a cleaning composition
comprising a plurality of water insoluble monodisperse, spherical
nanoparticles. The Examiner has finally rejected the claims as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The
Examiner's rejections are reversed.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Claims 6, 7, 11, 13-17, and 20 stand finally rejected by the Examiner.
Final Office Action dated January 6, 2012 ("Final Rej'n"). The rejections
Appeal2013-005875
Application No. 12/293,714
are as follows:
Claims 6, 7, 11, 13, 15-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of McDonald 1 and Barger2 "as evidenced" by Cortesi. 3
Final Rej 'n 2.
Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of McDonald
and Barger "evidenced" by Cortesi, and further in view of Song. 4 Final
Rej'n 4.
Claim 11 is the only claim independent claim on appeal. Claims 6, 7,
13-17, and 20 depend from it.
Claim 11 reads as follows:
11. A cleaning composition comprising a plurality of water
insoluble monodisperse, spherical nanoparticles in an aqueous
suspension medium in an amount that is from about 0.001 % to
about 25% of effective volume of the total cleaning
composition, each of the nanoparticles having an effective
diameter of about 65 nanometers or less with a standard
deviation of less than 10% of their mean diameter and
comprising silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide,
aluminum oxide, or a combination thereof, wherein the cleaning
composition includes adjunct materials and is a laundry
detergent, a liquid dishwashing detergent, a car cleaning
composition, a textile treating composition, or an industrial
degreasing composition.
1 McDonald et al., US 2003/0220221 Al, published Nov. 27, 2003.
2 Barger et al., US 2002/0160224 Al, published Oct. 31, 2002.
3 Cortesi et al., US 4,574,078, issued Mar. 4, 1986.
4 S. Song et al., Study on hydration layers near nanoscale silica dispersed in
aqueous solutions through viscosity measurement, 287 J. of Colloid and
Interface Science, 114--120 (2005).
2
Appeal2013-005875
Application No. 12/293,714
REJECTIONS
Claim 11 is directed to a "cleaning composition" which comprises "a
plurality of water insoluble monodisperse, spherical nanoparticles in an
aqueous suspension medium."
The spherical nanoparticles are required by the claim to have "an
effective diameter of about 65 nanometers or less with a standard deviation
of less than 10% of their mean diameter."
The nanoparticles comprise "silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, zinc
oxide, aluminum oxide, or a combination thereof."
The Examiner cited McDonald for its teaching of a cleaning
composition comprising spherical shaped metal oxide nanoparticles with
diameters of 1-120 nm, overlapping with the claimed range. Final Rej'n 2.
The Examiner found that McDonald did not describe the specifically
claimed oxides with the recited standard deviation. Id. However, the
Examiner found that Barger describes a "surface cleaning composition
comprising nanoparticles of metal oxides, such as aluminum oxide or silicon
dioxide, with diameter range of 2-50 nm," meeting the size and particle
composition required by the claim. Id. at 2-3. The Examiner considered
Barger's nanoparticles the functional equivalent "(having abrasion effect on
stain and soil) [of the] surface cleaning ingredient in McDonald's
composition" and therefore concluded it would have been obvious to have
utilized Barger' s nanoparticles in McDonald's composition. Id. at 3.
With respect to the recited standard deviation, the Examiner cited
Cortesi' s description of "a process for preparing [] monodispersed spherical
metal oxide particles, such as aluminum and titanium oxide, with
dimensions of below I micron and particle size standard deviation of 0.12."
3
Appeal2013-005875
Application No. 12/293,714
Id. The Examiner concluded that "it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to enhance the cleaning efficacy of McDonald's
composition with more uniform particles (and with a selected size) as
evidenced by Cortesi." Id.
Dependent claim 14 further recites that "a surface of the nanoparticle
comprises a hydration layer, an electrical double layer, one or more grafted
polymers, or a combination thereof." The Examiner cited Song for these
features.
Appellants argue that Barger' s nanoparticles do not clean the surface,
but rather remain on the surface and coat it. Br. 11. Appellants contend that
the "ordinarily skilled artisan would not take a discussion of suitable
nanoparticles for use as a coating and apply them to a cleaning composition"
as described in McDonald. Id. at 11-12.
Citing the abstract and paragraphs 6, 8, and 26 of Barger, the
Examiner responds that Appellants are "incorrect clearly." Answer 9.
The Examiner's position is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Neither the abstract nor paragraphs 6, 8, and 26 of Barger teach
that the nanoparticles are used for cleaning. N anoparticles are not
mentioned at all in these paragraphs. The Examiner does not support the
statement that Barger's nanoparticles are functionally equivalent to
McDonald's particle with sufficient evidence. The Examiner statements that
the particles have an "abrasion effect on stain and soil" (Final Rej 'n 3) and a
"soil removing effect" (Answer 8) are not supported by evidence or citation
to Barger.
Barger describes a composition for cleaning and/or treating surfaces.
Barger, i-fi-18, 9. Barger states in a "non-limiting embodiment, the treating
4
Appeal2013-005875
Application No. 12/293,714
composition can comprise non-photoactive nanoparticles." Id. at if 11.
Barger also states that the "cleaning composition may (or may not) include
other ingredients, such as those specified below for the treating composition
(including, but not limited to nanoparticles)." Id. at i-f 50 (emphasis added).
The only discussion of nanoparticles "below" involves their use to coat
surfaces. We have not been pointed to disclosure in Barger where the
nanoparticles are used to clean the surface by having an abrasive or soil
removing effect as found by the Examiner.
For example, in section C. of Barger titled "The Treating
(Finishing/Coating) Composition," Barger teaches that the composition
comprising nanoparticles "may also be referred to as a coating composition
since it may be applied by coating the surface." Id. at i-f 69. Barger teaches
that certain of the nanoparticles are selected because they are "capable of
providing a more uniform coating (that is, more continuous, i.e., less
openings in the way the coating forms after drying)." Id. at i-f 76. Barger
discloses that nanoparticles with charge may be used in some preferred
embodiments which "is believed to aid in hydroplilizing [sic] the surface
coated with the nanoparticles." Id. at i-f 81. Barger further teaches that
surfactants with the nanoparticles are "useful in the coating composition as
wetting agents to facilitate the dispersion of nanoparticles onto the surface."
Id. at i-f 85. Barger describes the compositions as comprising a polymeric
material "to assist in the attachment of the nanoparticles to the surfaces to be
treated." Id. at i-f 118. Barger describes applying the treating or coating
composition to the surface of a vehicle. Id. at i-f 120. The composition is
described as forming a coating on the surface. Id. at i-f 122. In sum, there is
extensive discussion in Barger on the use of the nanoparticles to coat
5
Appeal2013-005875
Application No. 12/293,714
surfaces. In contrast, the Examiner did not direct us to disclosure in Barger
where the nanoparticles were used to clean soil from a surface.
Because there is insufficient evidence to establish that Barger' s
spherical nanoparticles are used for cleaning and functionally equivalent to
the cleaning nanoparticles in McDonald, we are compelled to reverse the
rejection of claim 11 and dependent claims 6, 7, 13, 15-17, and 20.
With respect to the rejection of claim 14 further in view of Song, we
have not been directed to a teaching where the nanoparticles were used for
cleaning. Consequently, the rejection of claim 14 is deficient for the same
reasons as claim 11, and is reversed as well.
REVERSED
6