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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The first information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2026 has been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing of this office action.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to papers filed 03/17/2026, in which claims 2, 6, 8, and 18-21 were canceled; claims 1 and 12 were amended; and claims 23-25 were newly added. All the amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and entered.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-17, and 22-25 are under examination.
New Rejection
Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
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 22, 24 and 25 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.
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 25, the recitation of “the stabilizer” renders said claims indefinite because claims 22, 24, and 25 are dependent from claim 1 and thus, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the stabilizer” in claim 1. It is noted that claim 1 recites “an antimicrobial stabilizer” and thus, it is unclear what “the stabilizer” is claims 22, 24, and 25 referencing to, as claim 1 does not contain a stabilizer but rather an antimicrobial stabilizer. As such, it is not clear if “the stabilizer” as recited in claims 22, 24, and 25 is to the antimicrobial stabilizer or another stabilizer. For this office action and art rejection purpose, “the stabilizer” as recited in claims 22, 24, and 25 will be interpreted as referencing to the antimicrobial stabilizer in claim 1.
As a result, claims 22, 24, and 25 do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection desired.
Modified Rejections
Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – NEW MATTER
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-17, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 introduces new matter as the claim recites the limitation: "an antimicrobial stabilizer.” There is no support in the specification for the generically claimed “antimicrobial stabilizer.”
Applicant asserted that support for the amendments can be found throughout the as-filed application including, for example, at least pages 7, 10, 17, and 22 (see Remarks filed 01/23/2026, page 5, 1st paragraph).
However, after a thorough review of pages 7, 10, 17, and 22 of the specification, as well as, throughout the specification, there appeared to be no support for the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.”
It noted that page 7 of the specification discloses “a biocompatible activator and a pH-stabilizer that simultaneously acts both as a buffer and as antimicrobial agent” (see page 7, 2nd to last paragraph). However, this is not support for the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.” It is noted that the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer” include laundry list of antimicrobial stabilizers including but not limited to benzalkonium chloride, chlorhexidine, benzyl alcohol, and thimerosal, which are not supported or disclosed in the specification. Thus, Applicant does not have possession of the claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.”
It is noted that page 10-11 of the specification discloses “acetic acid as an activator that simultaneously is buffering the solution or gel to a biocompatible pH value” (see page 10, last paragraph to top of page 11). However, this is not support for the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.” There is no indication or disclosure in the specification that acetic acid is an antimicrobial stabilizer. Even if there was disclosure in the specification indicating that acetic acid functions as an antimicrobial stabilizer, this would still not provide support for the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer” as one species such as acetic acid cannot be representative of the entire genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.” As discussed above, the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer” include laundry list of antimicrobial stabilizers including but not limited to benzalkonium chloride, chlorhexidine, benzyl alcohol, and thimerosal, which are not supported or disclosed in the specification. Thus, Applicant does not have possession of the claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.” It is noted that page 17 of the specification discloses “[p]olyacrylic polymers that are known to stabilize formulations of H2O2 can be used with the present invention” (see page 17, 1st paragraph). However, there is no disclosure or indication in said page 17 that polyacrylic acid polymers as being an antimicrobial stabilizer, much less disclosure of the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.” As discussed above, the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer” include laundry list of antimicrobial stabilizers including but not limited to benzalkonium chloride, chlorhexidine, benzyl alcohol, and thimerosal, which are not supported or disclosed in the specification. Thus, Applicant does not have possession of the claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.”
It is noted that page 22 of the specification discloses “stabilizing solid” (see page 22, 2nd to last paragraph). However, there is not disclosure or indication in said page 22 that the stabilizing solid as being an antimicrobial stabilizer, much less disclosure of the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.” As discussed above, the generically claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer” include laundry list of antimicrobial stabilizers including but not limited to benzalkonium chloride, chlorhexidine, benzyl alcohol, and thimerosal, which are not supported or disclosed in the specification. Thus, Applicant does not have possession of the claimed genus of “antimicrobial stabilizer.”
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-17, and 22-25 are also rejected as they depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, thereby also containing the new matter material.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of filing of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed on 01/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph (New Matter) have been considered but are moot in view of the modified 112(a) New Matter rejection as set forth in this office action, which was necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Almas (US 2018/0179059 A1), and as evidenced by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (“Calcium Hypochlorite (CaCl2O2)/Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl).” Retrieved online on 17 November 2023; pages 1-20).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 24, and 25, Almas a disinfectant composition comprising a compound that produces hypochlorite anion (OCl-), acetic acid (an activator), buffering agents (a stabilizer), a polyacrylic acid polymer, and water (a pharmaceutically-acceptable diluent, adjuvant, or carrier), wherein the compound that produces hypochlorite anion (OCl-) includes Ca(OCl)2 (calcium hypochlorite – a solid oxidized chlorine species salt that is free of water) (Abstract; [0006]-[0027] and [0034]-[0063]; claims 1, and 3-22). As evidenced by ATSDR, calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) is generally available as a white powder, pellets, or flat plates (page 1), thereby the Ca(OCl)2 used in Almas is in solid form and is free of water.
It is noted that the polyacrylic acid polymer as taught by Almas meets the claimed “antimicrobial stabilizer” as evidenced by dependent claim 24, which defines a polyacrylic acid polymer as the stabilizer. Addition, polyacrylic acid exists in solid form, thereby also meeting the claimed “the stabilizer is a solid” as recited in claim 25. It is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claims 9-12, Almas teaches the disinfectant contains acrylate copolymers including polyacrylic acid polymers ([0052] and [0062]), thereby meeting the claims “viscosity-enhancing agent” of claims 9-12.
Regarding claim 16, Almas teaches the disinfectant composition is in the form of aqueous solution, gel, cream, ointment, or oil ([0053] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Almas teaches the disinfectant composition is produced and stored in a multi-compartment container (Abstract; [0006]-[0027] and [0034]-[0066]; claims 1-22; Figs. 1-4).
As a result, the aforementioned teachings from Almas (and as evidenced by ATSDR) are anticipatory to claims 1, 3, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 of the instant invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 13-14, 16, 22, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morelli et al (US 2004/0166136 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Morelli teaches a disinfectant composition comprising an oxidized solid chlorite salt, an acid activator, and water, where the acid activator is acetic acid, glycolic acid, lactic acid, pyruvic acid, malic acid, mandelic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, adipic acid, succinic acid, malonic acid, propionic acid, heptanoic acid, octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, salicylic acid, benzoic acid, gluconic acid, or mixtures thereof (Abstract; [0010]-[0022], [0025]-[0028], [0034], and [0063]-[0066]). Morelli teaches the solid chloride salt is an alkali or alkaline earth metal chlorite such as potassium chlorite or sodium chlorite ([0019] and [0021]). Morelli teaches the disinfectant composition further contains a nitrogenous stabilizer such as an amino acid (i.e., taurine) (Abstract; [0010]-[0022], [0025]-[0028], [0034], and [0063]-[0066]; claims 1-13). Morelli teaches the nitrogenous stabilizers stabilize the chlorite salt by reducing generation of chlorine dioxide upon formation of the disinfectant composition and slowing the rate of chlorine dioxide formation leads to a longer lasting disinfectant composition with less noxious odors to the use ([0011], [0019], and [0028]).
It is noted that the amino acid such as taurine as taught by Almas meets the claimed “antimicrobial stabilizer” as evidenced by dependent claims 22 and 23, which defines amino acid including taurine as the stabilizer. Addition, taurine exists in solid form, thereby also meeting the claimed “the stabilizer is a solid” as recited in claim 25. It is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 4, Morelli teaches the oxidized solid chlorite salt contains an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal salt of chlorous acid ([0010]-[0022]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Morelli teaches the disinfectant composition further contains an oxidized colorant (dye), in which the color and intensity of the color of the colorant is dependent on oxidation state of the chlorite salt ([0026]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 16, Morelli teaches the disinfectant composition is in the form of an aqueous solution, gel, or cream ([0020]).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Morelli teaches the nitrogenous stabilizer is an amino acid including glycine, serine, aspartate, glutamate, or taurine (Abstract; [0010]-[0022], [0025]-[0028], [0034], and [0063]-[0066]).
As a result, the aforementioned teachings from Morelli are anticipatory to claims 1, 4, 13-14, 16, 22, 23, and 25 of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Almas nor Morelli teach an antimicrobial stabilizer in the context of an antimicrobial formulation. (Remarks, pages 5-6).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed in the pending 102 rejection, Almas teaches the disinfectant composition contains a polyacrylic acid polymer. See 102 rejection, page 8 of the office action. As discussed in the pending 102 rejection, the polyacrylic acid polymer as taught by Almas meets the claimed “antimicrobial stabilizer” of claim 1 as evidenced by dependent claim 24, which defines a polyacrylic acid polymer as the stabilizer. Thus, it is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
With respect to Morelli, as discussed in the pending 102 rejection, Morelli teaches the disinfectant composition contains a nitrogenous stabilizer such as an amino acid (i.e., taurine). See 102 rejection, pages 9-10 of the office action. As discussed in the pending 102 rejection, the amino acid such as taurine as taught by Almas meets the claimed “antimicrobial stabilizer” of claim 1 as evidenced by dependent claims 22 and 23, which defines amino acid including taurine as the stabilizer. Addition, taurine exists in solid form, thereby also meeting the claimed “the stabilizer is a solid” as recited in claim 25. It is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
As a result, for at least the reason discussed above, independent claim 1 remain anticipated by the teachings from Almas or Morelli in the pending 102 rejections as set forth in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almas (US 2018/0179059 A1), as evidenced by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (“Calcium Hypochlorite (CaCl2O2)/Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl).” Retrieved online on 17 November 2023; pages 1-20), and further in view of Abe (US 2013/0017165 A1) and Goda (US 2015/0313214 A1), and as evidenced by PubChem (“Sodium Chlorite.” Retrieved online on 17 November 2013; pages 1-2).
The disinfectant compositions of claim 1, 3, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 are discussed above by Almas, said discussion incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 4, Abe teaches a disinfectant composition comprising a salt of alkali metal chlorites or a salt of alkali earth metal chlorite, an acid such as acetic acid, and water (Abstract; [0012]-[0029], [0036], [0045]-[0048]; claims 1-5). Abe teaches the salt of alkali metal chlorite or the salt of alkali earth metal chlorite is used to produce chlorous acid ([0036]). Abe teaches the preferred salt of alkali metal chlorite is sodium chlorite ([0036]). As evidenced by PubChem, sodium chlorite appears as a white crystalline solid (pages 1-2), thereby meeting the claimed a solid oxidized chlorine species salt, that is free of water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute sodium chlorite for calcium hypochlorite as a chlorine oxide, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Almas and Abe are drawn to disinfectant compositions containing a chloride oxide that requires long-term stabilization, an acid such as acetic acid, and water, and Goda provides the motivation for substituting chlorous acid for hypochlorous acid as a chlorine oxide in the disinfectant composition of Almas, as it is well-established in the prior art, hypochlorous acid and chlorous acids are conventionally known as chlorine oxides primarily used for disinfection, and the presence of acid such as acetic acid in the disinfectant composition of Almas, maintains the stability of chlorous acid for an extended time in the composition, thereby providing a disinfectant composition having bactericidal activity for extended period (Goda: [0002], [0017], [0069]-[0070]; claims 1-2 and 10), which is also the objective of the disinfectant composition of Almas ‘059 (Abstract; [0006], [0008], [0018], and [0048]). Thus, it would have been merely simple substitution of one known chlorine oxide for another to achieve predictable results of a disinfectant composition that maintains the stability of chlorous acid or hypochlorous acid the for an extended time in the composition, thereby providing a disinfectant composition having bactericidal activity for extended period, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Almas ‘059 teaches the acid is acetic acid (Abstract; [0017]-[0008], [0013], [0021]; claim 18).
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 was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almas (US 2018/0179059 A1), as evidenced by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (“Calcium Hypochlorite (CaCl2O2)/Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl).” Retrieved online on 17 November 2023; pages 1-20), and further in view of Panicheva et al (US 2016/0143944 A1).
The disinfectant compositions of claim 1, 3, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 are discussed above by Almas, said discussion incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 7, Panicheva teaches a disinfectant composition comprising hypochlorous acid, and saline (sodium chloride and water). Panicheva teaches that the disinfectant composition can be made hypertonic, hypotonic or isotonic with respective to physiological fluids by the addition of sodium chloride (NaCl) at varying concentrations (Abstract; [0005]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious that the disinfectant composition containing hypochlorous acid, acetic acid, sodium chloride (NaCl), and water of Almas has an osmolality in the range of about 0.1 mOsm to about 500 mOsm because Panicheva teaches that addition of sodium chloride, as is present in disinfectant composition of Almas would provide a resultant disinfectant composition that is isotonic or hypotonic, which would implicitly have an osmolality in the claimed range of about 0.1 mOsm to about 500 mOsm, absence of evidence to the contrary. Thus, it is noted that [w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
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 was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-17, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almas (US 2018/0179059 A1), as evidenced by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (“Calcium Hypochlorite (CaCl2O2)/Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl).” Retrieved online on 17 November 2023; pages 1-20), and further in view of Kang et al (US 2018/0010080 A1).
The disinfectant compositions of claim 1, 3, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 are discussed above by Almas, said discussion incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claims 13-15, Kang teaches an aqueous disinfectant comprising sodium or calcium hypochlorite, acetic acid, and water, wherein the disinfectant further contains a water-soluble pigment (dye) such a methylene blue (a reduction-oxidation dye), which provides a visual indicator of the presence of an oxidized chloride compound, as well as, color stability to the aqueous disinfectant (Abstract; [0014]-[0020], [0024], [0032]-[0035], [0040]-[0053], [0087], [0152], [0196], [0200], [0202], [0204]; claims 1-15 and 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a dye such as methylene blue in the disinfectant composition of Almas, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because as discussed above, Kang provided the guidance to do so by teaching that a dye such as methylene blue can be added to the disinfectant composition containing sodium or calcium hypochlorite, acetic acid, and water of Almas so as to the dye can function as a visual indicator for the presence of an oxidized chlorine compound (hypochlorous acid), as well as, color stability to the disinfectant. Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to produce an disinfectant composition that has visual indication of the presence of sodium hypochlorite, as well as, color stability, would have looked to including a dye such as methylene blue to the disinfectant composition of Almas, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
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 was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-12, 16, 17, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almas (US 2018/0179059 A1), as evidenced by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (“Calcium Hypochlorite (CaCl2O2)/Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl).” Retrieved online on 17 November 2023; pages 1-20), and further in view of Morelli et al (US 2004/0166136 A1).
The disinfectant compositions of claim 1, 3, 9-12, 16, 17, 24 and 25 are discussed above by Almas, said discussion incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Morelli teaches a disinfectant composition comprising an oxidized solid chlorite salt, an acid activator, and water, where the acid activator is acetic acid, glycolic acid, lactic acid, pyruvic acid, malic acid, mandelic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, adipic acid, succinic acid, malonic acid, propionic acid, heptanoic acid, octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, salicylic acid, benzoic acid, gluconic acid, or mixtures thereof (Abstract; [0010]-[0022], [0025]-[0028], [0034], and [0063]-[0066]). Morelli teaches the solid chloride salt is an alkali or alkaline earth metal chlorite such as potassium chlorite or sodium chlorite ([0019] and [0021]). Morelli teaches the disinfectant composition further contains a nitrogenous stabilizer such as an amino acid including glycine, serine, aspartate, glutamate, or taurine (Abstract; [0010]-[0022], [0025]-[0028], [0034], and [0063]-[0066]). Morelli teaches the nitrogenous stabilizers stabilize the chlorite salt by reducing generation of chlorine dioxide upon formation of the disinfectant composition and slowing the rate of chlorine dioxide formation leads to a longer lasting disinfectant composition with less noxious odors to the use ([0011], [0019], and [0028]).
It is noted that the amino acid such as taurine as taught by Almas meets the claimed “antimicrobial stabilizer” as evidenced by dependent claims 22 and 23, which defines amino acid including taurine as the stabilizer. It is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an amino acid such as taurine in the disinfectant composition of Almas, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Morelli provided the guidance to do so by teaching that an amino acid such as taurine can be advantageously added to the disinfectant composition of Almas so as to stabilize the chlorite salt by reducing generation of chlorine dioxide upon formation of the disinfectant composition and slowing the rate of chlorine dioxide formation leads to a longer lasting disinfectant composition with less noxious odors to the use. Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to stabilize the chlorite salt by reducing generation of chlorine dioxide upon formation of the disinfectant composition, would have looked to including an amino acid such as taurine in the disinfectant composition containing chlorite salt of Almas, and produce Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
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 was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of the cited prior arts teach or suggest a composition comprising a solid oxidized chlorine species with an antimicrobial stabilizer as recited in independent claim 1. (see Remarks, pages 6-7).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, Almas teaches the disinfectant composition contains a polyacrylic acid polymer. See 102 rejection, page 8 of the office action. As discussed in the pending 102 rejection, the polyacrylic acid polymer as taught by Almas meets the claimed “antimicrobial stabilizer” of claim 1 as evidenced by dependent claim 24, which defines a polyacrylic acid polymer as the stabilizer. Thus, it is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Thus, independent claim 1 remained anticipated by the teachings from Almas in the pending 102 rejection as set forth this office action.
For at least the reason discussed above, the pending 103 rejections are maintained for the reason(s) discussed in the pending 103 rejections as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3288. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/DOAN T PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights