DETAILED ACTION
Applicants' arguments, filed 11/28/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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
The instant application claims domestic priority to PRO 63/030,340 filed 05/27/2020.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 7-17, in the reply filed on 11/14/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 18-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 08/14/2025 complies with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP §609. Accordingly, it has been placed in the application file and the information therein has been considered as to the merits.
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.
A) Claims 7-9, 12-13, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man 704’ (US Patent Application Publication 20180249704 A1).
Man 704’ recites a method of killing microbes comprising: applying to a substrate a cleaning composition comprising: a cleaning component comprising a disinfectant, sanitizer, antimicrobial compound, or combinations thereof; and a polymer component, wherein said polymer is a high molecular weight cationic, nonionic, or anionic polymer; wherein the composition provides at least 4 log kill on treated surfaces while providing a reduced inhalation risk (Man 704’ at claim 24). Man teaches that the composition can exhibit activity against pathogens including fungi, molds, bacteria, spores, and viruses, for example, S. aureus, E. coli, Streptococci, Legionella, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, mycobacteria, tuberculosis, phages, or the like. Man 704’ further teaches that the composition can be applied to external or mucosal surfaces (Man 704’ at [0257]) Man 704’ recites a concentrated cleaning composition, comprising: a cleaning component comprising a disinfectant, sanitizer, antimicrobial compound, or combinations thereof; and a polymer component, wherein said polymer is a high molecular weight cationic, nonionic, or anionic polymer (Man 704’ at claim 1). Man 704’ teaches the composition may be a included in products such as sterilants, sanitizers, disinfectants, antiseptics, fungicides, germicides, sporicides, virucides, lubricants, rinse aids, and pre- or post-surgical scrubs (Man 704’ at [0255]). Man 704’ recites wherein said polymer component is an inversion emulsion polymer, dispersion polymer, powder polymer, xanthan gum, or combinations thereof (Man 704’ at claim 3). Man 704’ recites wherein the polymer component has a molecular weight of 1 million Da to 25 million Da; a particular size ranging from 0.1 to 10 microns; and a viscosity of 50 to 5000 cPs (Man 704’ at claim 8). Man 704’ recites further comprising at least one additional functional ingredient selected from the group consisting of additional surfactants, thickeners and/or viscosity modifiers, solvents, solubility modifiers, humectants, metal protecting agents, stabilizing agents, corrosion inhibitors, sequestrants and/or chelating agents, solidifying agent, sheeting agents, pH modifying components, fragrances and/or dyes, hydrotropes or couplers, buffers, and combinations thereof (Man 704’ at claim 11). Man 704’ recites wherein the composition provides at least 4 log kill on treated surfaces while providing reduced inhalation risk, wherein the composition provides reduced inhalation risk with a median particle size of said composition is about 11 microns or greater (Man 704’ at claim 12). Man 704’ teaches that the cleaning composition may be referred to as a non-Newtonian fluid. Newtonian fluids have a short relaxation time and have a direct correlation between shear and elongational viscosity (the elongational viscosity of the fluid equals three times the shear viscosity). Shear viscosity is a measure of a fluid's ability to resist the movement of layers relative to each other. Elongational viscosity, which is also known as extensional viscosity, is a measure of a fluid's ability to stretch elastically under elongational stress. Non-Newtonian fluids do not have a direct correlation between shear and elongational viscosity and are able to store elastic energy when under strain, giving exponentially more elongational than shear viscosity and producing an effect of thickening under strain (i.e., shear thickening). These properties of non-Newtonian fluids result in the cleaning composition that has a low viscosity when not under shear but that thickens when under stress from the trigger sprayer forming larger droplets (Man 704’ at [0069]). Man 704’ teaches a suitable PEO can have a molecular weight between about 3,000,000 and about 7,000,000. One commercially available PEO is Polyox WSR 301, which has a molecular weight of about 4,000,000 and is available from Dow. A suitable concentration range for PEO is between approximately 0.01 wt.-% and 0.3 wt.-% of the concentrate cleaning solution. A particular suitable concentrate range for PEO is between approximately 0.01 wt.-% and 0.2 wt.-% of the concentrate cleaning solution (Man 704’ at [0142]). Man 704’ teaches that suitable concentrations of the xanthan gum in a concentrated solution include between about 0.0001% and about 1% by weight, between about 0.0005% and about 0.5% by weight, between about 0.01% and about 0.2% by weight, and more preferably between about 5 ppm and 200 ppm xanthan gum (Man 704’ at [0148]). Man 704’ teaches that a use solution may be prepared from the concentrate by diluting the concentrate with water at a dilution ratio that provides a use solution having desired detersive properties. The water that is used to dilute the concentrate to form the use composition can be referred to as water of dilution or a diluent, and can vary from one location to another (Man 704’ at [0242-0245]). Man 704’ teaches a suitable shear viscosity for the cleaning compositions containing a polymer(s) is from about 1 to 1000 cPs, preferably from 1 to 100 cPs (Man 704’ at [0070]).
Man 704’ et al. differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Man 704’ et al. teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Man 704’ et al. to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 7, Man 704’ recites a method of killing microbes comprising: applying to a substrate a cleaning composition comprising: a cleaning component comprising a disinfectant, sanitizer, antimicrobial compound, or combinations thereof; and a polymer component, wherein said polymer is a high molecular weight cationic, nonionic, or anionic polymer; wherein the composition provides at least 4 log kill on treated surfaces while providing a reduced inhalation risk (Man 704’ at claim 24). Man 704’ teaches that the cleaning composition may be referred to as a non-Newtonian fluid. Newtonian fluids have a short relaxation time and have a direct correlation between shear and elongational viscosity (the elongational viscosity of the fluid equals three times the shear viscosity). Shear viscosity is a measure of a fluid's ability to resist the movement of layers relative to each other. Elongational viscosity, which is also known as extensional viscosity, is a measure of a fluid's ability to stretch elastically under elongational stress. Non-Newtonian fluids do not have a direct correlation between shear and elongational viscosity and are able to store elastic energy when under strain, giving exponentially more elongational than shear viscosity and producing an effect of thickening under strain (i.e., shear thickening). These properties of non-Newtonian fluids result in the cleaning composition that has a low viscosity when not under shear but that thickens when under stress from the trigger sprayer forming larger droplets (Man 704’ at [0069]). Man 704’ teaches a suitable shear viscosity for the cleaning compositions containing a polymer(s) is from about 1 to 1000 cPs, preferably from 1 to 100 cPs (Man 704’ at [0070]) which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 10-3 to 103 poise. Man teaches that the composition is able to store elastic energy when under strain, giving exponentially more elongational than shear viscosity. Therefore, in order to have exponentially more elongational viscosity than shear viscosity, an increase of at least a 101 would be necessary (Man at [0069]). As such, the ranges taught by Man 704’ would overlap with the instantly claimed range of 102 to 107 poise. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I) Man 704’ teaches that a use solution may be prepared from the concentrate by diluting the concentrate with water at a dilution ratio that provides a use solution having desired detersive properties. The water that is used to dilute the concentrate to form the use composition can be referred to as water of dilution or a diluent, and can vary from one location to another (Man 704’ at [0242-0245]). Man 704’ teaches a suitable PEO can have a molecular weight between about 3,000,000 and about 7,000,000. One commercially available PEO is Polyox WSR 301, which has a molecular weight of about 4,000,000 and is available from Dow (Man 704’ at [0142]).
Regarding instant claim 8, Man 704’ teaches that the composition is able to store elastic energy when under strain, giving exponentially more elongational than shear viscosity. Therefore, in order to have exponentially more elongational viscosity then the viscosity an increase of at least a 101 would be necessary (Man 704’ at [0069]) which, would overlap with the instantly claimed range of 10-10,000. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 9, Man 704’ teaches a suitable concentration range for PEO is between approximately 0.01 wt.-% and 0.3 wt.-% of the concentrate cleaning solution (Man 704’ at [0142]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.01 to 5 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I)
Regarding instant claim 12-13, Man 704’ recites further comprising at least one additional functional ingredient selected from the group consisting of additional surfactants, thickeners and/or viscosity modifiers, solvents, solubility modifiers, humectants, metal protecting agents, stabilizing agents, corrosion inhibitors, sequestrants and/or chelating agents, solidifying agent, sheeting agents, pH modifying components, fragrances and/or dyes, hydrotropes or couplers, buffers, and combinations thereof (Man 704’ at claim 11).
Regarding instant claim 39, Man 704’ teaches a suitable concentration range for PEO is between approximately 0.01 wt.-% and 0.3 wt.-% of the concentrate cleaning solution (Man 704’ at [0142]).
Regarding instant claim 40, Man 704’ teaches the term “functional ingredient” includes a material that when dispersed or dissolved in a use and/or concentrate solution, such as an aqueous solution, provides a beneficial property in a particular use (Man 704’ at [0240]). Man 704’ teaches that a use solution may be prepared from the concentrate by diluting the concentrate with water at a dilution ratio that provides a use solution having desired detersive properties. The water that is used to dilute the concentrate to form the use composition can be referred to as water of dilution or a diluent, and can vary from one location to another (Man 704’ at [0242-0245]). Man 704’ teaches, the compositions according to the invention can be made by combining the components in an aqueous diluent using commonly available containers and blending apparatus. Beneficially, no special manufacturing equipment is required for making the compositions (Man 704’ at [0248]). Man ‘704 teaches that in a preferred aspect, the composition is a concentrated liquid composition (Man 704’ at [0249]). Therefore, Man teaches that the polymer is dissolved into an aqueous composition.
B) Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man 704’ (US Patent Application Publication 20180249704 A1) as applied to claim 7-13 and 39-40 above, and further in view of Primus (US Patent Application Publication 20110104644 A1).
The teaching of Man 704’ et al are discussed above.
The teachings of Man 704’ differ from instant claim 17 insofar as they do not specifically teach the use of a rotary instrument. The teachings of Primus cure this deficit.
Primus teaches the use of a rotary instrument in a dental procedure, which may include canal work (Primus at [0041-0042]). Primus teaches improved composition for dental procedures in canal work that include water-based liquids and water-soluble polymers. Primus teaches the use of polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, and xanthan gum used in a range of about 5% to about 40%(Primus at [0028-0029]).
Primus differs from instant claim 7 insofar as it does not specifically teach a poise for the composition. The teachings of Man 704’ cure this deficit.
One would have been motivated to have used the composition of Man 704’ in the dental instruments of Primus for the benefit of reduced inhalation risk. It would have been obvious to have tried to use the reduced inhalation risk composition of Man 704’ in the rotary instrument of Primus because both Primus and Man 704’ teach a composition for disinfecting and care that includes a specific amount of the same dissolvable polymers. See MPEP 2143(E) and 2143 (F).
Regarding instant claim 14-15 and 17, Primus teaches the use of a rotary instrument in a dental procedure, which may include canal work (Primus at [0041-0042]).
Regarding instant claim 16, Primus teaches the use of an ultra-sonic tip which would be an ultrasonic scaler (Primus at [0059]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 7 under Man have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Man 704’ which teaches the use of PEO in an aqueous composition.
Relevant Prior Art
Man et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0335254 A1)
Man recites a sprayable acidic cleaning composition with reduced misting comprising: an effective cleaning amount of an acid source; from about 0.0001 wt-% to about 1 wt-% of a high molecular weight inverse emulsion polymer; at least one surfactant; and water; wherein the acidic composition reduces the formation of airborne aerosol particles having a micron size of less than about 10 when sprayed, and a use solution of the composition has a shear viscosity from about 1 to about 1000 cPs, and wherein the high molecular weight inverse emulsion polymer does not increase the shear viscosity of the composition more than about 10% (Man at claim 1). Man further teaches that the spray is a non-Newtonian fluid. Newtonian fluids have a short relaxation time and have a direct correlation between shear and elongational viscosity (the elongational viscosity of the fluid equals three times the shear viscosity). Shear viscosity is a measure of a fluid's ability to resist the movement of layers relative to each other. Elongational viscosity, which is also known as extensional viscosity, is a measure of a fluid's ability to stretch elastically under elongational stress. Non-Newtonian fluids do not have a direct correlation between shear and elongational viscosity and are able to store elastic energy when under strain, giving exponentially more elongational than shear viscosity and producing an effect of thickening under strain (i.e., shear thickening). These properties of non-Newtonian fluids result in the sprayable composition that has a low viscosity when not under shear but that thickens when under stress from the trigger sprayer forming larger droplets (Man at [0056]). Man further teaches a benefit, the formulations containing an inverse emulsion polymer having fast inversion avoid the formation of fish-eyes, as is commonly referred to as the formation of a nondissolvable gel or clump (Man at [0188]).
Becker et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20040138079A1)
Becker recites a reduced aerosol generating formulated personal care or cleaning product comprising a) a high molecular weight polymer and b) one or more personal care or cleaning product components, wherein said polymer acts as an anti-misting agent and increases a Dv50 of the formulated personal care or cleaning product by 10-200% over the corresponding non-formulated personal care or cleaning product (Becker at claim 1). Becker recites a method of reducing aerosol generation from a personal care or cleaning product comprising incorporating into said product an aqueous composition comprising a high molecular weight polymer having a molecular weight from about 0.8×106 to 4.0×107, resulting in a formulated product wherein a Dv50 of said formulated product is between 10 to 200% greater than the Dv50 of the corresponding non-formulated personal care or cleaning product (Becker at claim 12). Becker recites wherein the high molecular weight polymer is selected from polyethylene oxide, polyacrylamide, substituted acrylamides, acrylamide copolymers, and gums, and the formulated product comprises from 0.0001% to about 10.0% of the polymer (Becker at claim 15).
Della Valle et al (US Patent 5876744A)
Della Valle recites a highly bioadhesive and mucoadhesive aqueous composition useful in the rehydration of the skin and mucosal tissues and/or as a vehicle for active principles in percutaneous absorption, comprising: (a) polycarbophil in an amount ranging from about 0.1 to 2% by wt; (b) polyvinyl alcohol in an amount ranging from about 0.1 to 4% by weight; and (c) a biopolymer selected from the group consisting of: (1) hyaluronic acid and salts thereof, in an amount ranging from about 0.05% to 5% by weight, said hyaluronic acid having an average molecular weight ranging from about 800,000 to 1,200,000 daltons, (2) dermatan sulfate and salts thereof, in an amount ranging from about 0.05% to 5% by weight, said dermatan sulfate having an average molecular weight of about 5,000 to 8,000 daltons; (3) chondroitin sulfate, and salts thereof; and(4) alginic acid and salts thereof in an amount ranging from about 0.5% to 5% by weight (Della Valle at claim1). Della Valle recites a method for treating skin and mucosa tissues to dryness and dehydration, which comprises administration of a bioadhesive and mucoadhesive aqueous composition (Della Valle at claim 8).
The relevant prior art is presented for completeness of the record and compact prosecution. In selecting the references to be used in rejecting the claims, the examiner should carefully compare the references with one another and with the applicant’s disclosure to avoid an unnecessary number of rejections over similar references. The examiner is not called upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the "best." (See 37 CFR 1.104(c).) Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided. See MPEP 904.03, third paragraph in section. The examiner takes the position that Becker or Della Valle or Man appears to be just as good as Man ‘704 or Primus. As such, no rejection over Becker or Della Valle or Man has been written in view of the provisions of MPEP 904.03.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
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, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612