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 .
Priority
This application is a CIP of 16521212 which claims priority from 62/703751. Thus, the earliest date for the instant claims is 07/26/18. However, as all of the claims depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, which requires the claimed primary coating additive and these additives were not disclosed in 16521212 or 62/703751 the filing date afforded to the instant claims is 08/11/20.
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 1-4, 7-13, 15-17, and 21 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.
Applicants have amended the claims, specifically claims 1, 12, and 15 to now require that the composition is non-adhesive. However, applicant’s coating additives which are claimed within these claims are disclosed in the specification as being adhesive resins and as such it is unclear how the claimed compositions are non-adhesive as now claimed but contain adhesives/adhesive resins which are specifically disclosed in the specification as being adhesive resins for forming adhesive compositions, wherein they disclose that the adhesive resins can be the claimed polyester; urethane; epoxy; silicone; acrylate; polysulfide; polyimide; EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate); phenol (e.g. phenolic); polybenzimidazole; polyquinoxazoline; polyphenylquinoxazoline; bismaleimide; cyanoacrylate; polyene; polythiol; fibrin; gelatin; rubber latex; nitrile-phenol; and vinyl phenol. Thus, it is unclear to the examiner how the claimed compositions can be non-adhesive as claimed when the claimed primary coating additives are specifically disclosed in the specification as being adhesive resins useful for forming adhesive compositions. Thus, for purposes of applying prior art and because it is not clear what is meant by applicant’s non-adhesive limitation since they have not defined what this term means and because the claimed non-adhesive composition as claimed contains the instantly disclosed adhesive resins, then any film comprising these coating additive/polymers/resins is considered non-adhesive whether or not the prior art teaches it being adhesive since it would read on the instantly claimed coating composition components. Further, coatings or films which are applied to a surface are to some degree adhesive in that they stay where they are applied as a coating/film. Thus, it is unclear to the examiner what is meant by the newly added limitation of the coating being non-adhesive as now claimed. As discussed above because adhesive is not defined and adhesive can merely include a film on a surface wherein the film remains on the surface or adhesive can mean sticky/tacky films/coatings which are applied to a surface. Thus, it is completely unclear what is meant by non-adhesive coating as is now claimed. Thus, for purposes of applying prior art as discussed above because it is not clear what is meant by applicant’s non-adhesive limitation since they have not defined what this term means and because the claimed non-adhesive composition as claimed contains the instantly disclosed adhesive resins, then any film comprising these coating additive/polymers/resins is considered non-adhesive whether or not the prior art teaches it being adhesive since it would read on the instantly claimed coating composition components which are taught in the instant specification to be adhesive/have adhesive properties.
Claims 2-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, and 21 are also rejected because they depend either directly or indirectly on claims 1, 12, and 15 and do not resolve the ambiguities in those claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 15-17, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 7560592 in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both ‘592 and the instant application claim antimicrobial compositions comprising the same active agents in solution/composition along with buffers which buffer the solution to the same pH that are instantly claimed, surfactants/wetting agents, and wherein the halosulfonamide is present in the composition in overlapping amounts to those instantly claimed. ‘592 specifically teaches methods of killing microorganisms comprising applying/contacting an area with a biocidal solution comprising an effective amount of the same halosulfonamides instantly claimed and they prefer alcohols which would readily evaporate to leave a coating of the halosulfonamide on the surface, especially since they do not claim removing or rinsing or wiping the composition off of the surface to which it was applied, which was treated with the antimicrobial solution comprising the same amounts of halosulfonamide. Thus, the halosulfonamide solution of ‘592 would form a coating upon evaporation of the solvent and therefore reads on the claimed composition which forms a coating comprising an amount of 0.0001 wt% to 100 wt% of the halosulfonamide because this would be what is left behind after the solvent evaporates. Further, as ‘592 teaches killing unwanted microorganisms in an affected area this area could literally be anything and would include things like countertops and reads on the claimed treated articles, e.g. trash bags and plastic, which again include anything, wherein the coating on the articles/area would be present upon evaporation of the solvent in amounts of 0.0001 wt% to about 100 wt%. ‘592 does not specifically claim applicant’s preferred halosulfonamides, chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzensulfonamide or wherein the process/composition used in the process further comprises the instantly claimed primary coating additive, e.g. polyurethane and wherein the treated article is specifically a trash bag. However, these deficiencies in ‘592 are addressed by ‘284, Hemling, Conforti, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% which reads on claim 8 (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface/article to which it is applied e.g. it is left on to the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solvent/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip and leaves behind the active agent and wetting agents, etc. and thus forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was also known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmony plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method of killing unwanted microorganisms in ‘592 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halo sulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a film forming polymer in the amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling specifically the claimed polyesters that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling in the formula of ‘592 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms on surfaces to which is applied and left to dry since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats and dairy equipment and the film forming polymers instantly claimed, such as polyesters that are taught by Hemling will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied. Further it would be obvious to apply the claimed composition as taught by the combined references to trashbags because it was known to put antimicrobial and antiodor coatings/treatments on the surface of trash bags as is taught by Harmonyx.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated articles/trash bags are all obvious variants of the method of US7560592 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 15-17, and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8003823 in view of US20110251284, Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘823 claims a process of controlling odor which comprises treating a material with a solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides in the same concentrations/amounts which are instantly claimed, particularly chloramine T, so the process for controlling odor would also obviously be antimicrobial since it comprises the claimed compounds in the claimed amounts/concentrations, and ‘823 teaches wherein the solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides further comprises a buffer which achieves the same pH of the solution as is instantly claimed and wherein the composition includes a wetting agent/surfactant, and can include an alcohol, which would readily evaporate to leave a coating/residue of the halosulfonamide on the material that is being treated, especially since they do not claim removing or rinsing or wiping the composition off of the material as part of their process. Thus, the process of ‘823 would also form coatings and comprises the same compounds and is taught to be applied to articles/materials which reads on the instantly claimed articles which are treated with a coating/coating composition and as the compounds are being used in the same/overlapping concentrations in the process of ‘823 the process of ‘823 is invariably also killing microorganisms for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed since this is a property of the claimed compounds when used in the claimed compositions which are taught by ‘823. ‘823 merely does not teach wherein the composition used to form the coatings comprises a primary coating additive, e.g. polyurethane. However, these deficiencies in ‘823 are addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method of ‘823 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a film forming polymer in the amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyester as are instantly claimed, into the formula of ‘823 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer, specifically the claimed polyesters taught by Conforti and/or Hemling will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied, and it would be obvious to apply the claimed compositions as taught by the combination of prior art to trashbags because it was known to apply antimicrobial coatings to trashbags and the instantly claimed coating composition would be both antimicrobial and antiodor which would be very beneficial for trash bags as trash has odor and microbes in it to which humans/handlers are exposed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the method of US8003823 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 6667030 in view of US20110251284, Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II” and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx) for the same reasons that are discussed above.
‘030 claims a process of controlling odor which comprises treating a material with a solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides in the same concentrations/amounts which are instantly claimed, particularly chloramine T, so the process for controlling odor would also obviously be antimicrobial since it comprises the claimed compounds in the claimed amounts/concentrations, and ‘030 teaches wherein the solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides further comprises a buffer which achieves the same pH of the solution as is instantly claimed and wherein the composition includes a wetting agent/surfactant, and can include an alcohol, which would readily evaporate to leave a coating/residue of the halosulfonamide on the material that is being treated, especially since they do not claim removing or rinsing or wiping the composition off of the material as part of their process. Thus, the process of ‘030 would also form coatings and comprises the same compounds and is taught to be applied to articles/materials which reads on the instantly claimed articles which are treated with a coating/coating composition and as the compounds are being used in the same/overlapping concentrations in the process of ‘030 the process of ‘030 is invariably also killing microorganisms for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed since this is a property of the claimed compounds when used in the claimed compositions which are taught by ‘030. ‘030 does not teach wherein the composition used to form the coatings comprises a primary coating additive.
However, these deficiencies in ‘030 are addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method of ‘030 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically polyesters as are instantly claimed in the formula of ‘030 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer, specifically the claimed polyesters taught by Conforti and/or Hemling construction materials, etc. of Schneider II will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied, and it would be obvious to apply the claimed compositions as taught by the combination of prior art to trashbags because it was known to apply antimicrobial coatings to trashbags and the instantly claimed coating composition would be both antimicrobial and antiodor which would be very beneficial for trash bags as trash has odor and microbes in it to which humans/handlers are exposed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the method of US6667030 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7629492 in view of US20110251284, Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx)for the same reasons that are discussed above.
‘492 claims a process of controlling odor which comprises treating a material with a solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides in the same concentrations/amounts which are instantly claimed, particularly chloramine T, so the process for controlling odor would also obviously be antimicrobial since it comprises the claimed compounds in the claimed amounts/concentrations, and ‘492 teaches wherein the solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides further comprises a buffer which achieves the same pH of the solution as is instantly claimed and wherein the composition includes a wetting agent/surfactant, and can include an alcohol, which would readily evaporate to leave a coating/residue of the halosulfonamide on the material that is being treated, especially since they do not claim removing or rinsing or wiping the composition off of the material as part of their process. Thus, the process of ‘492 would also form coatings and comprises the same compounds and is taught to be applied to articles/materials which reads on the instantly claimed articles which are treated with a coating/coating composition and as the compounds are being used in the same/overlapping concentrations in the process of ‘492 the process of ‘492 is invariably also killing microorganisms for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed since this is a property of the claimed compounds when used in the claimed compositions which are taught by ‘492. ‘492 merely does not teach wherein the composition used to form the coatings comprises a primary coating additive, e.g. polyurethane.
However, these deficiencies in ‘492 are addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method of ‘492 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically polyesters as are instantly claimed, in the formula of ‘492 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer, specifically the claimed polyester taught by Hemling and/or Conforti will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied, and it would be obvious to apply the claimed compositions as taught by the combination of prior art to trashbags because it was known to apply antimicrobial coatings to trashbags and the instantly claimed coating composition would be both antimicrobial and antiodor which would be very beneficial for trash bags as trash has odor and microbes in it to which humans/handlers are exposed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the method of US7629492 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US6296841 (‘841) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776),, Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘841 claims a process of controlling odor which comprises treating a material with a solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides in the same concentrations/amounts which are instantly claimed, particularly chloramine T, so the process for controlling odor would also obviously be antimicrobial since it comprises the claimed compounds in the claimed amounts/concentrations, and ‘841 teaches wherein the solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides further comprises a buffer which achieves the same pH of the solution as is instantly claimed and wherein the composition used in the method includes a wetting agent/surfactant, and wherein Chloramine T is the preferred active agent and is used in amounts which read on the instantly claimed amounts. Thus, the Chloramine T in ‘841 is also functioning as an antimicrobial and is killing microorganisms for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed. ‘841 does not teach that their composition forms a coat/coating or an article containing the coating but they never claim removing or rinsing or wiping the composition off of the surface to which the chloramine T composition was applied or require that the solution be formed with a solvent that does not evaporate.
However, these deficiencies in ‘841 are addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (which reads on the claimed solvent) prior to use as a teat dip or spray for treating various surfaces including teats and dairy equipment which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area treated (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto trash bags/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method(s) of ‘841 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically polyesters as are instantly claimed, in ‘823 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymers that are taught by Hemling and/or Conforti will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions to trashbags/plastic bags in order to provide new trashbags with better/long lasting antiodor and antimicrobial effects as it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to surfaces of trashbags/plastic trash bags as is taught by Harmonyx.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated articles are all obvious variants of the method of ‘841 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US7465829 (‘829) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx) for the same reasons that are discussed above.
‘829 claims a process of controlling odor and sanitizing teats, and killing bacteria and/or fungi which comprises treating a material with a solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides in the same concentrations/amounts which are instantly claimed, which include the claimed n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, so the process for controlling odor, santitizing teats, and killing bacteria would also obviously be antimicrobial since it comprises the claimed compounds in the claimed amounts/concentrations being applied to surfaces, and ‘829 teaches wherein the solution comprising the claimed halosulfonamides is used in amounts which read on the instantly claimed amounts. Thus, the halosulfonamides of ‘829 are functioning as an antimicrobial and are killing microorganisms for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed because they are the same compounds being used/applied in the claimed amounts and this is a property of these compounds. ‘829 does not teach that their composition forms a coat/coating, or contains water or contains the claimed primary coating actives in the claimed amounts or contains the claimed buffering agents, surfactants, etc.
However, this deficiency in ‘829 is addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto trash bags/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method(s) of ‘829 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a thickener/film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyester, taught by Conforti and/or Hemling in the composition of ‘829 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions to trashbags/plastic bags in order to provide new trashbags with better/long lasting antiodor and antimicrobial effects as it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to surfaces of trashbags/plastic trash bags as is taught by Harmonyx. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated articles are all obvious variants of the method of ‘829 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US7371368 (‘368) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘368 teaches/claims a process for controlling odor comprising applying a solution comprising an effective amount of the same haloactive sulfonamides instantly claimed to a material (which reads on the claimed article/surface, etc.), wherein the applied solution comprises a buffering agent which maintains the claimed pH ranges, and wetting agents/surfactant and fragrance, and wherein the active halosulfonamide compound is present in the same amounts which are instantly claimed, and because the compounds/compositions of ‘368 are the same as the instantly claimed compositions which form a coat and the actives are the same and are being used in overlapping amounts the articles of ‘368 which have been treated also maintain antimicrobial activity for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed. ‘368 does not claim wherein the composition which is applied to control odor forms a coating or wherein the composition comprises a primary coating additive, e.g. polyurethane, or that the solvent/water is present in the claimed amounts.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% which reads on claim 8 (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method(s) of ‘368 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyesters as taught by Conforti and/or Hemling in the formula/composition of ‘368 in order to form an effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to trash bags because when trashbags/plastic trashbags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags because of the thickener/polymer allowing for better coating. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the method of ‘368 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-10, 15 of US9040587 (‘587) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘587 teaches method of disinfecting teats of a dairy animal/milking equipment comprising applying an aqueous solution comprising the claimed haloactive compounds in the claimed amounts to the teat of the animal/dairy equipment. ‘587 teaches wherein the composition has the claimed pH and can comprise a wetting agent and buffer and because the compounds/compositions of ‘587 are the same as the instantly claimed compositions which form a coating and the actives are the same and are being used in overlapping amounts the articles of ‘587 which have been treated also maintain antimicrobial activity for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed. ‘587 does not teach wherein the composition which forms a coating is used to coat an article or wherein the coating composition comprises a primary coating additive, e.g. polyurethane. However, these deficiencies are addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method(s) of ‘587 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with a thickener/film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyesters that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling in the formula of ‘587 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the thickener/film forming polymers that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling allow the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to plastic trash bags because when trashbags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved/longer lasting antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the method of ‘587 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 12, 13-14, 19-20 of US8759399 in view of US20110251284 and Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II” for the same reasons as discussed above.
‘399 teaches method of sanitizing teats of a dairy animal/milking equipment comprising applying an aqueous solution comprising the claimed haloactive compounds in the claimed amounts to the teat of the animal. ‘399 teaches wherein the composition has the claimed pH and can comprise a wetting agent and buffer and because the compounds/compositions of ‘399 are the same as the instantly claimed compositions which form a coating and the actives are the same and are being used in overlapping amounts the articles of ‘399 which have been treated also maintain antimicrobial activity for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed. ‘399 does not teach wherein the composition which forms a coating upon evaporation/drying on the surface of the teat is used to coat an article or wherein the coating composition comprises a primary coating additive, e.g. polyurethane. However, these deficiencies are addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method(s) of ‘399 is also obviously forming a coating on the surface to which it is applied because the composition is being left on the surface and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with the claimed thickener/film forming polymers in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyesters in the formula (composition) of ‘399 in order to form an effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the thickener/film forming polymer that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on/coat the surfaces to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to plastic trash bags because when trashbags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the method of ‘399 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US9408940 (‘940) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘940 claims an odor-controlling article comprising a substrate which contains the instantly claimed haloactive compounds, specifically the instantly claimed chloramine-T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide, which are applied in the same amounts/concentrations to the substrate (which reads on the instantly claimed article which is treated with the claimed compounds), and wherein the composition comprising the haloactive compounds comprises a buffer and because the compounds/compositions of ‘940 are the same as the instantly claimed compositions which form a coat and the actives are the same and are being used in overlapping amounts the articles of ‘940 which have been treated also maintain antimicrobial activity for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed. ‘940 merely does not claim wherein the haloactive sulfonamide composition forms a coat on the absorbent article, and wherein the composition that is applied maintains the claimed pH, comprises a primary coating active e.g. polyurethane, and a surfactant/wetting agent and solvent/water. However, these deficiencies in ‘940 are addressed by ‘284, Conforti, Hemling, Schneider II, and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method(s) of ‘940 is also obviously forming a coating on the absorbent article to which it is applied because the composition is being left on/in the article and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide which means it is coated in some manner, even if the fibers are coated, etc., and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with the claimed thickener/film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyesters that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling in the formula (composition) of ‘940 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling allow the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to trash bags because when trashbags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved/longer lasting antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the method of ‘940 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17 and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16 of US8425890 (‘890) in view of US20110251284, Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘890 teaches odor controlling articles which are treated with the same haloactive sulfonamides instantly claimed, specifically chloramine T, which are applied in the same amounts/concentrations to the substrate (which reads on the instantly claimed article which is treated with the claimed compounds), and wherein the composition comprising the haloactive compounds comprises a buffering agent. Because the compounds/compositions of ‘890 comprise most of the instantly claimed components they would therefore form a coating and the actives are the same and are being used in overlapping amounts the articles of ‘890 which have been treated also maintain antimicrobial activity for the same periods of time that are instantly claimed. ‘890 does not claim wherein the haloactive sulfonamide composition forms a coating on the article or wherein the composition comprises a primary coating additive, e.g. polyurethane, etc. However, these deficiencies are addressed by ‘284, Hemling, Conforti, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% which reads on claim 8 (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the odor-controlling bodily fluid absorbent member (device) of ‘890 is also obviously forming a coating/coated on the absorbent article to some degree to which it is applied because the composition is being left on/in the article and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide which means it is coated in some manner, even if the fibers are coated, etc., and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with the claimed thickener/film forming polymers in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyester (Conforti and/or Hemling) in the device of ‘890 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer/gelling agent that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions/include these active agents in the coatings/layers/films taught by the combined references on/to trash bags because when trashbags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved/longer lasting antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the device of ‘890 in view of ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16 of US9987389 (‘389) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘389 claims an odor-controlling article comprising a substrate which has had the instantly claimed haloactive compounds, specifically the instantly claimed chloramine-T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide, which are applied in the same amounts/concentrations to the substrate (which reads on the instantly claimed article which is treated with the claimed compounds), and ‘389 teaches wherein a fragrance, surfactant/wetting agent, and buffers can be added to the composition comprising the haloactive sulfonamide which reads on the instantly claimed composition which forms a coat, especially since the buffers are used to maintain the same pH that are instantly claimed. Further because the compounds/compositions of 389 are the same as the instantly claimed compositions which form a coat and the actives are the same and are being used in overlapping amounts the articles of ‘389 which have been treated also maintain antimicrobial activity for the same periods of time. ‘389 merely does not claim wherein the haloactive sulfonamide composition forms a coating on the absorbent article or wherein the coating composition comprises a primary coating additive, specifically polyurethane, etc. However, these deficiencies are addressed by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the odor-controlling article (device) of ‘389 is also obviously forming a coating/coated on the article to some degree to which it is applied because the composition is being left on/in the article and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide which means it is coated in some manner, even if the fibers are coated, etc., and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with the claimed film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyesters that are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling in the device of ‘389 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the thickener/film forming polymers as taught by Conforti and/or Hemling which read on the claimed polymers/additives will function as a thickener/film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on/coat the surfaces/article to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to trash bags because when trashbags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved/longer lasting antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the device of ‘389 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 1-4, 7-17 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13, 16 of US10653811 (‘811) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx). ‘811 claims an odor-controlling article comprising a substrate which has had the instantly claimed haloactive compounds, specifically the instantly claimed chloramine-T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide, which are applied in the same amounts/concentrations to the substrate (which reads on the instantly claimed article which is treated with the claimed compounds), and ‘811 teaches wherein a fragrance, surfactant/wetting agent, and buffers can be added to the composition comprising the haloactive sulfonamide which reads on the instantly claimed composition which forms a coating, especially since the buffers are used to maintain the same pH that are instantly claimed. Further because the compounds/compositions of ‘811 comprise the same actives and solvents which form a coating to areas in which the compositions are applied and the actives are the same and are being used in overlapping amounts the articles of ‘811 which have been treated also maintain antimicrobial activity for the same periods of time as are instantly disclosed. ‘811 merely does not claim wherein the haloactive sulfonamide composition forms a coating on the absorbent article and further comprises a primary coating additive. However, these deficiencies are addressed by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, Schneider II and Harmonyx.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the Instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the odor-controlling article (device) of ‘811 is also obviously forming a coating/coated on the article to some degree to which it is applied because the composition is being left on/in the article and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide which means it is coated in some manner, even if the fibers are coated, etc., and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with the claimed film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling, specifically the claimed polyesters in the device of ‘811 in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer, specifically the claimed polyester taught by Conforti and/or Hemling will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces/article to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to trash bags because when trashbags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved/longer lasting antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the device of ‘811 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
Claims 15-17, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 23, and 25 of copending Application No. 16521212 and Conforti (US20110211776),
‘212 and the instant application both claim articles, specifically polymeric/plastic bags/trash bags coated with coating comprising N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide. The instant application merely claims wherein the coated article can be coated with other sulfonamides besides the specifically claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide of ‘212 and the instant application also requires the presence of a primary coating active specifically selected from polyurethane, etc. which is not required of ‘212. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the polymeric bag of ‘212 reads on and/or renders obvious the coated/treated article of instant claims when taken in view of Conforti.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add the claimed primary coating additive(s), specifically the polyester of Conforti which are instantly claimed to the composition of ‘212 in order to develop the instantly claimed coating composition because by adding the claimed primary coating additives would improve ability of the coating composition to coat/treat the article to which it is applied thereby maximizing the antimicrobial/anti-odor effect of the coating on the coated article. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4 and 7-17, and 21 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 13-16 of copending 17971233 (‘233) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘233 teaches articles, specifically pet bedding, to which the instantly claimed haloactive compounds, specifically the instantly claimed chloramine-T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide and discloses that textile base material which is a required component of their antimicrobial animal bedding material can be polyurethane, and wherein the product can further comprise solvents, and/or pH stabilizers with the claimed active agents are applied in the same amounts/concentrations to the pet bedding/article (which broadly on the instantly claimed article which is treated with the claimed compounds/compositions) to form a coating thereon the article/pet bedding. ‘233 does not teach/claim wherein their composition specifically comprises a buffering agent with the claimed compound and textile base material or wherein the composition when applied contains the claimed coating materials.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the Instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
‘233 also does not teach wherein their coated/treated materials are other than pet bedding and/or textile base material which includes polyurethane, specifically plastic/plastic trash bags. However this deficiency is addressed by Harmonyx.
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the antimicrobial bedding/ article is also obviously forming a coating/coated on the article/bedding to some degree to which it is applied because the composition is being left on/in the article and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and the film forming polymer as taught by the combination of ‘284 and Conforti and/or Hemling which means the bedding of ‘233 is coated in some manner, even if the fibers are coated, etc., and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with the claimed thickener/film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by Conforti and/or Hemling in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the film forming polymer, specifically the claimed polyester which are taught by Conforti and/or Hemling will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces/article to which it is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to trash bags because when trash bags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to plastic trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved/longer lasting antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the device of ‘233 in view of the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations with the same polymer/film forming additives, e.g. polyurethane, to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 21 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 12-20 of copending 17971209 (‘209) in view of US20110251284 (‘284), Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Conforti (US20110211776), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, and Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx).
‘209 teaches articles, specifically pet litter and bedding comprising absorbent base material (which as disclosed includes polyurethane), to which the instantly claimed haloactive compounds, specifically the instantly claimed chloramine-T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide and/or compositions which can comprise the claimed primary coating additives and/or solvents, and/or pH stabilizers with the claimed active agents are applied in the same amounts/concentrations to the pet bedding/article (which broadly on the instantly claimed article which is treated with the claimed compounds/compositions) to form a coating thereon the article/pet bedding. ‘209 does not teach wherein their composition specifically comprises a buffering agent with the claimed compound and coating additive, e.g. polyurethane/urethane, and/or wherein the actives are used to treat a trashbags/plastic.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15, ‘284 teaches a coating composition comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film on the teat/area (e.g. dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and ‘284 teaches wherein the composition can further comprise the disclosed cellulose/cellulose derivatives (primary coating additives) in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1 and 7 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1, 7, 18-20; Examples 1-2) which would read on primary coating additives which ‘284 refers to as thickening agents. ‘284 further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives, e.g. HPMC (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because ‘284 teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the Instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction and poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
‘209 also does not teach wherein their coated/treated materials are other than pet litter or bedding and/or made of textile base material specifically trash bags. However this deficiency is addressed by Harmonyx.
It was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto plastic/plastic trash bags, e.g. plastic Harmonyx trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface, etc. (see entire document).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the antimicrobial bedding/ article is also obviously forming a coating/coated on the litter/bedding to some degree to which it is applied because the composition is being left on/in the article and the liquid will evaporate leaving behind the halosulfonamide and the polyurethane/additive which means it is coated in some manner, even if the fibers of the textile are coated, etc., and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the preferred chloramine T of ‘284 with the claimed thickener/film forming polymer in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘284, Conforti and/or Hemling in order to form a very effective composition for killing microorganisms/controlling odor, etc. since chloramine T is known to be useful at killing microorganisms on cow teats/dairy equipment and the thickener/film forming polymer, specifically the claimed polyester as taught by Conforti and/or Hemling will function as a film former thereby allowing the composition to better stay on the surfaces/article to which It is applied and further it would be obvious to apply these compositions as taught by the combined references to trash bags because when trash bags are used they often emit odor from the trash and the trash will contain microbes and it was already known to apply antimicrobial/antiodor compositions to trashbags and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the claimed compositions to trashbags to provide improved/longer lasting antimicrobial and antiodor effects to the bags.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed composition, compound and treated article are all obvious variants of the device of ‘209 in view and the combined references which together teach applying the same actives in the same concentrations with the same polymer/film forming additives, e.g. polyesters, to articles/surfaces to control odor/kill microorganisms which is the same thing that is being accomplished by the coating compositions and articles, etc. of the instant claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US20110251284) and further in view of Hemling et al. (GB2337521A), Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II”, Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx), as evidenced by JPH0592208.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, Schneider teaches a coating composition/coating film comprising applicant’s preferred chloramine T or n-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide, and wherein they specifically prefer Chloramine T, which is diluted in water which reads on claims 1-4, 12, 15 (Which reads on the claimed solvent and the n H2O molecules of the compound) prior to use as a teat dip or spray which comprises the chloramine T or N-chloro-4-carboxybenzylsulfonamide or compound of applicant’s formula I in a concentration of about 0.0005 to about 5% by weight which overlap the instantly claimed ranges (and as such has the claimed property of maintains at least 98% killing performance because it is the same compound being applied in the same amounts instantly claimed and this is a property of the claimed compounds) of claims 1, 7, 11, 13, or are the same ranges as are instantly claimed is allowed to evaporate and therefore forms a coat/film which remains on the teat/area (including dairy equipment) to which it is applied and wherein the diluted composition prior to application comprises a wetting agent/surfactant, a buffering agent which allows the pH to be from 8 to about 9.5 which reads on the claimed ranges of claim 9-10 (see entire document; Examples 1-2, Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0002-0003]; [0009-0014]; [0016-0017]; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]) and Schneider teaches wherein the composition can further comprise thickeners which read on primary coating additives in amounts of 0.1 to 5 wt% of the solution which reads on the instantly claimed ranges in claims 1-4, 7, 12 ([0059]; [0043]; [0017]; [0020]; Claims 1-7, 9, 18-20; Examples 1-2). Schneider further teaches wherein the water/solvent is present as the balance of the composition/is present in amounts of about 20 wt% to about 99.9 wt% which reads on claim 8 (See claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]).
Regarding the instant claims, Schneider teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application as a spray or dip forms an antimicrobial coating/film on the area/surface to which it is applied e.g. it is left on the treated area especially since it comprises polymeric coating additives these areas to which it is applied including living tissue (e.g. teats) and/or other surfaces, e.g. dairy equipment (See entire document; examples 1-2, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 19-20; [0042]; [0043, wetting agents/surfactants, buffering agents, etc.], [0045, solution evaporates, and deposits compounds]; [0041]; [0046-0047]; claims; [0068]; examples; [0019-0020]; [0062]), and because Schneider teaches wherein when the water/solution evaporates after application to the treated area as a spray or dip forms a coat/film on the area, the treated area with the film reads on the instantly claimed article having an antimicrobial and/or odor-reducing coating film on a surface thereof.
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, Schneider does not teach wherein the coating composition comprises the specifically claimed primary coating actives/thickeners/gelling agents, e.g. an epoxy or wherein the film/coating is specifically non-adhesive. However, these deficiencies are addressed by Hemling and Schneider II.
Hemling teaches compositions for treating bovine teats with antimicrobials (e.g. ethanol) as a protectant/teat dip which comprises antimicrobials and which contains polymers to provide viscosity/thickening of the composition specifically wherein polyester polyurethane leads to coatings which stay on for over 5 days when used in 10.35 wt% of the composition (See Table 10 example Q).
Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have anti-odor properties and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions for application into and onto various surfaces ([0091]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction including poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the antiodor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed primary coating actives in the claimed amounts because Hemling teaches that the claimed primary coating actives, e.g. polyesters were known to be used with antimicrobials in teat dip formulations for treating teats in animals with antimicrobials and antimicrobial coating formulations to be left on the treated surface, e.g. forming a film/coating on the teat and Schneider teaches that it was known to use thickeners/film forming agents in their teat dip/antimicrobial coating formulations for use on dairy equipment, etc. which are not particularly limited. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the known additives, e.g. polyesters of Hemling into the film forming composition of Schneider in order to form a more effective film forming antimicrobial composition because the claimed primary coating additives were already known in the art to be used with antimicrobials for forming antimicrobial coating compositions for treating various surfaces including living and non-living surfaces, e.g. teats and dairy equipment itself which move and/or are flexible, e.g. a trash bag or plastic with the expectation that these coatings would provide the claimed activity and would dry and remain on the surface to which they are applied more readily due to the presence of the thickening/film forming polymer.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the amount of the film forming polyester polymer of Hemling in the formulations of Schneider because Schneider already teaches using 5% of thickener(film former) in their formulation and Hemling teaches using their film forming polymers, e.g. polyester in amounts of about 10 wt% in teat dip compositions. Thus, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of the film forming polyester polymer of Hemling into the composition of Schneider in order to form the most effective antimicrobial film for treating teats and other dairy equipment and other articles, e.g. plastic and/or trashbags in order to form effective films which allow for long term/extended antimicrobial activity.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 15-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US20160158404) “Schneider II” as evidenced by Schneider (US20110251284), Conforti (US20110211776), Harmonyx (https://web.archive.org/web/20120604230432/https://www.alufplastics.com/productline.php?category=harmonyx), as evidenced by JPH0592208.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 15-17, Schneider II teaches that the claimed active compounds when used in compositions in the same/overlapping amounts also have antiodor properties (and as evidenced by Schneider also have antimicrobial properties (abstract; [0003]; [0023]; [0025]; [0069]; [0027-0029], etc.)) and Schneider II teaches incorporating/applying the claimed active agents ([0005-0017, inclusive]) in compositions for application into and onto various surfaces via dipping, which would read on the claimed coating compositions since the compositions are being used to coat articles to which they are applied ([0091]; [0021]; [0085]; [0093-0094]), specifically construction materials and raw materials for construction including poly bags/polybags (which read on the claimed plastic surfaces on which the coating film can be/is applied) ([0093-0094]), in the same amounts instantly claimed, e.g. 0.1 to about 23% (w/v) of the composition to leave behind a coating/residue having antiodor and antimicrobial activity because Schneider II teaches that the materials/raw materials can be pre-treated having the anti-odor composition applied in advance so that when odor is encountered the active compounds can then function (e.g. active compounds are on standby) ([0005-0017, inclusive]; [0091; [0093-0096]). Thus, by adding the claimed compound to polybags and other surfaces, when used/applied to a surface they would form the claimed film/coating.
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 15-17, and 21, Schneider II does not teach wherein their coating compositions comprise the claimed polymers. However, this deficiency in Schneider II is addressed by Conforti.
Conforti teaches trashbags which can contain layers/films which can contain antiodor compounds which would broadly include the claimed antiodor/antimicrobial compounds/additives within and on their layers/films of polyester polymers and polyethylene, etc. which would read on the claimed coatings comprising the claimed components because the film layer containing or having on it the odor reducing compounds would be a coating either between the layers of the bag or on/in contact with another layer of the bag, e.g. on an inner or outer surface (See abstract; [0046-0050]; [0015-0017]). They also teach that polyesters are useful in such layers because they provide the trash bags to have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties ([0048]).
Schneider II also does not teach wherein their treated poly bags are trash bags or wherein the coating is on an inner surface of the trash bag or an outer surface of the trash bag or wherein the trash bag is formed from a multi-layer film and the coating film is located between two layer of the multi-layer film containing bag. However, these deficiencies are addressed by JPH0592208 and Harmonyx.
JPH0592208 evidences that the poly bags of Schneider II, would include trash bags, because both are made with polyethylene or vinyl chloride, etc., which are both plastic polymers and trash bags are known in the art to be referred to as polybags/poly bags ([0002]).
Further, it was known in the art to put antimicrobials into/onto trash bags, e.g. Harmonyx plastic trash bags that have antimicrobial and odor protection on an inner surface and/or an outer surface (see entire document), and because the trash bags are plastic trash bags they read on the claimed plastic surface which is treated with antimicrobials.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to coat the outside of plastic/polyethylene trash bags and/or to place antimicrobial coating between the layers of the trash bag with the coating/dipping composition of Schneider II in order to develop the instantly claimed coated trash bags because Schneider II teaches that poly bags can be treated with compositions comprising the halosulfonamide which is left to dry as per [0093-0096] and subsequently forms a coating/layer on the surface and it would be obvious to use the claimed polymers in the coatings with the actives of Schneider II in order to form effective coatings for treating trashbags because Conforti teaches that polyester polymers were known to provide good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties to bags with which these polymers are used and it was known to use antiodor and antibacterials in coatings/layers/films in/on plastic bags, which would include trash bags. It also would have been obvious to use the composition of Schneider II to comprise the polyester polymers of Conforti claimed film forming agents and the claimed halosulfonamides in the claimed amounts on the poly bags/trash bags of Schneider II, JPH0592208 and Harmonyx or in between layers of a trashbag, which are as evidenced by JPH0592208 poly bags/known in the art as polybags, because it was already known to treat trash bags with antiodor and antimicrobials and it would be obvious to use the claimed polymers because it will afford these films/layers/coatings with good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties to the claimed articles, e.g. trash and polybags to which these compositions comprising the claimed polyester and halosulfonamide active agent are applied/layered. Thus, it would be obvious to form the claimed article by combining the claimed coating additives with the claimed actives for treating treat trash/poly bags based on the teachings of Schneider II, Conforti, JPH0592208 and Harmonyx with the claimed composition as taught by Schneider II and Conforti in order to provide alternative treated trash bags that have lasting antimicrobial effects and anti-odor effects and have good barrier, thermal, mechanical and toughness properties.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been fully considered and have prompted the revised grounds of rejection herein and these amendments have also overcome the previous grounds of rejection under 112(d) which is hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments insofar as they pertain to the new/revised grounds of rejection are addressed herein. Firstly, applicants argue all of the double patenting rejections together and that because polyolefins are deleted these rejections are no longer appropriate. However, applicant’s claim amendments have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein and as such these amendments have prompted the new grounds of rejection under 103 and double patenting presented herein. Thus, applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous grounds of rejection but the amendments have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein
Applicants then argue that the 103 rejection and double patenting rejections should be withdrawn because applicant’s have amended the claims to exclude the previously claimed polyolefins and as such the prior art Ehrhard and Glenn no longer apply as prior art and all of the rejections of record are overcome. However, applicant’s claim amendments have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein as discussed above.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin E Hirt whose telephone number is (571)270-1077. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-7:30 ET M-F.
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ERIN E HIRT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights