DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of t/e previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 2/20/2026 wherein claims 1 and 7 have been amended and claims 25 and 26 have been added.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 15 and 22-26 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 2/20/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 7, 15-17 and 22-24 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Mitra et al (US 2003/0148917) in view of Napolitano et al. (US 2012/0034287), evidenced by Hope et al. (US 9096821) have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive and is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 11/25/2025.
In regards to the 103 rejection, Applicant asserts the following:
A) The claims have been amended to provision against the presence of amine oxide and alkyl polyglycoside (APG) surfactants. Such an amendments reflects the carefully selected surfactants which result in cleaning composition which exhibit improved performance, e.g. low streaking, low filming.
In response to A, Mitra at [0006] teaches that their cleaning composition are prepared so as to exhibit reduced streaking and filming (see [0024]). [0029] teaches that the wipe composition according to their invention exhibit little or no streaking/filming. So, the goal of reducing streaking/filming is a focus of the applied prior art.
As to the presence/absence of amino oxide and APG surfactants, Mitra does suggest their inclusion for surfactant benefit but they are not required. [0011] of Mitra states that the surfactants may be selected from “glycoside, glycols, ethylene oxide and mixed ethylene oxide/propylene oxide adducts of alkylphenols, the ethylene oxide and mixed ethylene oxide/propylene oxide adducts of long chain alcohols or of fatty acids; mixed ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block copolymers, esters of fatty acids and hydrophilic alcohols, sorbitan monooleates, alkanolamides, soaps, alkylbenzene sulfonates, olefin sulfonates, paraffin sulfonates, propionic acid derivatives, alcohol and alcohol ether sulfates, phosphate esters, amines, amine oxides, alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, sarcosinates, sulfoacetates, sulfosuccinates, cocoamphocarboxy glycinate, salts of higher acyl esters of isethionic acid, salts of higher acyl derivatives of taurine or methyltaurine, phenol poly ether sulfates, higher acyl derivatives of glycine and methylglycine, alkyl aryl polyether alcohols, salts of higher alkyl substituted imadazolinium dicarboxylic acids, ferchorics, tannics, naphthosulfonates, monochloracetics anthraflavinics, hippurics, anthranilics, naphthoics, phthalics, carboxylic acid salts, acrylic acids, phosphates, alkylamine ethoxylates, ethylenediamine alkoxylates, betaines, sulfobetaines, and/or imidazolines.” Amine oxide and APG surfactants are two surfactants from a large number of potential surfactants to be included in Mitra’s cleaning wipe composition. In the present case, although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. In the present case, the claims negative limitation to amino oxide and APG surfactants does not overcome the fact that myriad other surfactants are contemplated for inclusion into the cleaning composition that is intended to exhibit little to no filming/streaking.
Rejections
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, 7, 15, 22-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al (US 2003/0148917; of record) in view of Napolitano et al. (US 2012/0034287; of record), evidenced by Hope et al. (US 9096821; of record).
Mitra is directed to a bactericidal cleaning wipe comprising a concentrated cleaning composition comprising a cationic biocide, a biocide releasing agent and water (see abstract, [0006]).
The cationic biocide is an antimicrobial quaternary ammonium compound such as dimethyl dioctyl ammonium chloride, octadecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium bromide (a halide salt of a quaternary ammonium compound) and an alkyldimethylethylbenzyl ammonium chloride (see [0009, 0036]) (see instant claims 1(i)-(iii)). The cationic ammonium biocide may be present in an amount of between 0.05-5% by weight (see [0009]) (see instant claims 1 and 7). Combinations of the aforementioned quaternary compounds would have been readily envisaged as they are all together understood to impart antimicrobial activity. Such a combination of quaternary compounds would result in a composition that is free of a quaternary ammonium wherein the three substituents on the central nitrogen are C1-C4 alkyl groups (see instant claim 1).
The biocide releasing agent may be a salt such as sodium citrate (see [0010]) (see instant claim 23). Hope is cited as evidence that sodium citrate is also a known ‘preservative’ and thus would naturally have this property despite being unrecognized as such.
Mitra may also include a surfactant to improve the performance of the composition (see [0011]). An exemplified surfactant includes betaines such as cocoamidopropylbetaine (see [0011]) (see instant claims 1, 16, 17). Ethylene oxide adducts of long chain alcohols (i.e. ethoxylated alcohols) are also envisaged (see [0011]) (see instant claim 7). The concentration of the surfactant is between 0.01-5% (see [0012]) (see instant claim 1).
The formulation may comprise a builder detergent and/or pH buffering agents comprising a silicate phosphate, zeolites (an aluminosilicate) (see [0013]) and silicates (a pH builder as identified by the claims) (see [0016]) (see instant claim 7) wherein the silicate is present in the composition in an amount of about 0.09-0.25% (see [0013]) (see instant claim 1). It is noted that the claims recite ‘a silicate’ which is broad and encompasses each of the silicate species noted above as they all read on ‘a silicate’ as the possess the silicate functionality (see instant claim 23). Moreover, Mitra also teaches that the builder detergent may include substituted ammonium salts such as monoethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine which read on the broad species of ‘monoalkanolamines, dialkanolamines and trialkanolamines’ of instant claims 24 and 26 (as ethanol is an ‘alkanol’).
The water (‘first solvent’) content of the cleaning composition is at least about 70% (see [0015]) (see instant claims 1 and 7).
Mitra’s formulation may contain additional solvents such as isopropanol (‘second solvent’) in an amount of about 5% (see [0040]) (see instant claim 1).
In all, Mitra suggests a composition comprising a quaternary antimicrobial active in an amount of about 0.05-5% by weight of the composition, a cocoamidopropyl betaine surfactant in an amount of 0.01-5% by weight, water (‘first solvent’) in an amount of at least about 70, isopropanol (‘second solvent’) in an amount of about 5% and a pH builder in an amount of about 0.09-0.25% (see instant claim 1). The ranges described by Mitra either overlap with or are sufficiently close to the ranges claimed and are therefore deemed obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The formulation may comprise a pH regulating and buffering agent including alkali metal and alkaline earth salts of silicate and metasilicates (see [0016]) (see instant claim 7).
The wipe of Mitra’s composition spunbonded web or bonded carded web (see [0007]) (see instant claim 22).
Mitra fails to teach the composition as having a pH of greater than 9.
Napolitano is directed to a nonwoven wipe (see instant claim 22) composition wherein the wipe is impregnated with an aqueous composition comprising a quaternary ammonium salt so as to disrupt the cell membrane of bacteria causing it to die (see [0033]). The composition is to comprise a pH adjusting agent (see [0048]) so as to produce a final disinfectant composition having a pH between 9.5-10.5 (see [0051]) (see instant claim 1). Given how similar Mitra and Napolitano are, it would have been obvious to use a similar pH in Mitra’s composition with a reasonable expectation for success in killing unwanted microorganisms.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al (US 2003/0148917; of record) in view of Napolitano et al. (US 2012/0034287; of record), evidenced by Hope et al. (US 9096821; of record) as applied to claim1, 7, 15, 22-24 and 26 above, and further in view of Rai et al. (US 5904161).
Although Mitra teaches including metasilicate in their composition, Mitra (and Napolitano) fails to teach the metasilicate as being that of sodium metasilicate pentahydrate.
Rai provides cleaning compositions that comprise a metasilicate as part of the pH adjusting complex. Rais teaches that the metasilicate can be sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (see column 5, lines 22-32). It would have been obvious to modify Mitra and Napolitano such that the included metasilicate was that of sodium metasilicate pentahydrate as it was known to perform the same function as the broader class of metasilicate contemplated by Mitra.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights