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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. US 2013/0344120 A1, in view of Siamon US 2002/0031555 A1 and Lea et al. US 2009/0074878 A1, and further in view of Nataja et al. EA 025997 B1.
This rejection has been withdrawn in view of the Remarks filed 03/23/2026.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breckwoldt et al. US 20180362893 A1, in view of Scott et al. US 2013/0344120 A1 and further in view of Siamon US 20020031555 A1 and Lea et al. US 20090074878 A1.
Breckwoldt teaches an aqueous composition such as a disinfectant composition comprising at least one antimicrobial compound for application to a hard surface, and at least one surfactant. In some such aspects, the aqueous composition, such as a disinfectant composition, may be directly formulated as a ready-to-use formulation suitable for use on hard surfaces. See Abstract and Examples. Composition diluted or dissolved in aqueous liquid is found in paragraph 0012-0017. Disinfectant including cetyltrimethylammonium bromide is found in paragraph 0034. Aqueous composition is found in paragraph 0058.
Breckwoldt does not expressly teach the use of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate plus the claimed concentration of the components
Scott teaches an aqueous disinfectant composition comprising at least about 0.025% by weight of a quaternary ammonium antimicrobial agent. See abstract. Quaternary ammonium including cetyl trimethylammonium bromide in an amount ranging from about 0.025% to about 0.1% is found in paragraph 0064. Carrier includes up to about 99% by weight of water is found in paragraph 0133. The composition further comprises from about 0.5% to about 5% bicarbonate such as sodium bicarbonate. See paragraph 0134. Scott also teaches the inclusion of buffering agent including trisodium phosphate and sodium carbonate in an amount ranging from about 0.5% to about 10%. See paragraph 0135.
It is noted that Scott does not expressly teach the claimed combination of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate and trisodium phosphate. However, combination of such is known in the art. See for example the teaching in Siamon. Specifically, at paragraph 0016, where Siamon teaches “Advantageously, solutions in accordance with the present disclosure are formulated using a mixture of three well-known, readily available substances, sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO.sub.3, CAS RN 144-55-8), sodium carbonate (Na.sub.2CO.sub.3, CAS RN 497-19-8) and trisodium phosphate (Na.sub.3PO.sub.4, CAS RN 10101-89-0). Each of these substances is essentially non-toxic and otherwise safe.
The cited references further do not teach the claimed ratio between sodium carbonate to trisodium phosphate. However, such ratio is known in the art. See for example the teaching in Lea at paragraph 0034, Examples, and claims, which teach the ratio of 4:5 between sodium carbonate and trisodium phosphate.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the method taught in Breckwoldt in view of the teaching in Scott and Siamon and Lea to include combination of trisodium phosphate, sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate to obtain the claimed invention. This is because Siamon teaches that combination of trisodium phosphate, sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate in a disinfectant composition is known in the art, because Siamon teaches combination of trisodium phosphate, sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate is effective to continuously providing antibacterial, anti-fungal and antiseptic activity (abstract), and this is because Scott teaches the desirability to include trisodium phosphate, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate and other antibacterial agents to obtain a disinfectant solution that is safe and useful for topical use.
Claims 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breckwoldt et al. US 20180362893 A1, in view of Scott et al. US 2013/0344120 A1 and further in view of Siamon US 20020031555 A1 and Lea et al. US 20090074878 A1 and Nataja et al. EA 025997 B1.
The cited references do not expressly teach surface contaminated with Aspergillus genus. However, disinfecting surface infected with Aspergillus is known in the art. See for example the teaching in Nataja. Nataja teaches an aqueous disinfectant for disinfecting surface infected with Aspergillus genus. See abstract. The disinfectant comprising an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate, trisodium phosphate and alkybenzyldimethyammonium chloride.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disinfect surface contracted with Aspergillus genus in view of the teaching of Nataja. This is because Nataja teaches the use of a similar disinfectant effective for disinfecting surfaces contaminated with Aspergillus genus is useful and known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0606. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 am-5:30 pm.
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, ROBERT A. WAX can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUSAN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights