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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are pending.
Claim 13 has been canceled.
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are currently amended.
Claims 16-17 have been added.
Claims 1-10 and 16-17 are currently under consideration.
Claims 1-10 and 16-17 are rejected.
Acknowledgement of Receipt
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ amendments and remarks filed 06/30/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Withdrawn Objections
The objections to claims 1, 6 and 10 are withdrawn.
In light of the new amendments and upon further consideration, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite are withdrawn.
Maintained Rejections
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Action dated 03/04/2025 since the art that was previously cited continues to read on the newly amended limitations.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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. Applicants are 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 1-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhr (US 20150322318) hereinafter referred to as Uhr ‘318 and Uhr (US 20170215421) hereinafter referred to as Uhr ‘421.
Uhr ‘318 discloses antifungal silicone sealing compounds comprising at least one microencapsulated fungicide, wherein the fungicide is selected from a group that includes microencapsulated fungicides, wherein the fungicide is selected from a group that includes propiconazole and mixtures of these fungicides, and the fungicide is encapsulated with an encapsulation material comprising at least one melamine-formaldehyde polymer (abstract, [0001], claims 1, 7, 8). Uhr ‘318 teaches N-octyl-isothiazolin-one (i.e., OIT, 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one) and iodine derivatives such as 3-iodo-2-propynyl-n-butylcarbamate (IPBC) as particularly favorable co-components in mixtures ([0079], look to pg. 5, in col. 2).
Uhr ‘318 does not read on the OIT to the sum total of propiconazole and/or IPBC weight ratio limitations of claim 1 (i.e., 5:1 to 1:5), claim 16 (i.e., 1:1 to 1:5), and claim 17 (1:1.5 to 1:3).
Uhr ‘421 discloses a biocide agent consisting at least of an algicide, propiconazole, and an iodopropargyl compound, where preferably at least one of the active ingredients is bound, preferably microencapsulated (title, abstract, [0001], [0021], claims 1, 2). Uhr ‘421 discloses that the iodopropargyl compound is 3-iodo-2-propynyl-n-butylcarbamate (IPBC) ([0036-0037], claims 5-6, 17, 19). Uhr ‘421 teaches that the encapsulation material is melamine formaldehyde polymer i.e., Maprenal® ([0108], [0126] see encapsulated diuron example; claim 12). Looking to the instant specification, Applicants disclose the use of Maprenal® (see Spec., pg. 5, line 18).
With respect to weight ratios, Uhr ‘421 provides examples of encapsulated algicide, i.e., diuron, at a ratio of about 1:1 of diuron to the sum of IPBC ([0133],[0137] Examples 4-5). Uhr ‘421 discloses 1:1 diuron to the sum of IPBC and propiconazole ([0139-0140], Examples 6-7). Uhr ‘421 discloses that algicide(s) to the sum of propiconazole and the sum of iodopropargyl compound(s) is 1:100 to 100:1 ([0038], claim 8). Given that Uhr ‘421 clearly teaches OIT as an algicide ([0088]), and that the algicide to the sum of IPBC and/or propiconazole is from 1:9 to 9:1 thus, the prior art of Uhr ‘421 reads on the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the one known algicide i.e., diuron, taught by Uhr ‘421 with the specific 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one OIT of Uhr ‘318 for a similar purpose of providing a biocidal agent which combines excellent fungicidal and algicidal action with a simultaneously long action time even under weathering conditions (Uhr ‘421 [0019]); long-term protection against microorganisms and prevention of leaching of the fungicide (Uhr ‘318 [0003-0004]). In addition, Uhr 421’s teaching of N-methylisothiazolin-3-one as an algicide ([0088], look to pg. 5, second column in the middle) indicates that diuron could be substituted with the claimed OIT. Simple substitution of one fungicide for another is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2 (i.e., capsule material to biocide 1:4-4:1) and claim 3 (i.e., 1:4-1:1.5), Uhr ‘318 teaches a weight ratio of melamine formaldehyde polymer to fungicide of 1:6 to 1:2 ([0016]) and provides 1:1 melamine-formaldehyde (MF) to biocide in Examples 1-3 ([0088]).
Regarding claim 4 (i.e., OIT and propiconazole), Uhr ‘318 teaches OIT as a co-components with propiconazole ([0079], claim 7, 9, 13).
Regarding claim 5 (i.e., >99% is OIT and propiconazole) and claim 7 (i.e., >99% is OIT and IPBC), Uhr ‘318 teaches that the content of microencapsulated fungicides in solid formulations may be varied within a wide range and that the solid formulations contain 3% to 99% by weight of microencapsulated fungicides ([0042]). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Uhr ‘318 discloses solid formulations comprise at least one microencapsulated fungicide, wherein the fungicide is selected from the group of tebuconazole, propiconazole or thiabendazole or mixtures of these fungicides and the fungicide has been encapsulated with at least one melamine-formaldehyde resin; at least one extender ([0043]).
Uhr ‘421 teaches that the weight ratio of algicides to the sum of propiconazole and the sum of iodopropargyl compounds is 1:100 to 100:1 ([0038], claim 8) and that the biocidal agent comprises 0.5 to 80% by weight of the active ingredients ([0040], claims 9, 18). MPEP 2144.05 states that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Applicants have yet to provide evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6 (i.e., OIT and IPBC), Uhr ‘318 teaches 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate (i.e., IPBC) ([0079]). Uhr ‘421 discloses biocidal agent wherein at least one algicide is diuron; the iodopropargyl compound is 3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl-carbamate (IPBC) ([0036-0037], claim 19).
Regarding claim 8 (i.e., 0.3 to 100 µm), Uhr ‘318 teaches that the microencapsulated fungicides feature a median diameter of 0.3 to 100 µm ([0032]). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 9 (i.e., additional resins), Uhr ‘318 teaches that further possible amino resins which may be added to the melamine formaldehyde resins include, for example, formaldehyde-urea resins, urethane resins, cyanamide resins or dicyanamide resins, aniline resins and sulphonamide resins, aminoplast or mixtures of these resins ([0020]).
Regarding claim 10 (i.e., protective colloid), Uhr teaches that it is also possible to add further binders, protective colloids or auxiliaries known to those skilled in the art, to the melamine-formaldehyde prepolymers ([0024]).
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Calenti (WO 2017095335) in view of Wunder (US 20100099793), evidence by Sui (RSC Adv. 2018, 8, pgs. 29495-29498) and Habar (US 20160325259).
Calenti discloses microencapsulation of organic biocide, in particular 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone (DCOIT) which is incorporated into a polymeric microcapsule comprising a porous polymeric membrane selected from melamine-formaldehyde, and at least one biocide as an active component within said polymeric membrane (pg. 1, para. 1; claims 1, 5). Calenti discloses that the most preferred biocides are methyl 4,5-dichloro-octylisothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT), 2-n-octylisothiazolin-3-one (OIT), 3-iodo-2-propynyl N-butylcarbamate (IPBC), and 1H-benzimidazol-2-ylcarbamate (pg. 7, para. 2, claim 2).
Calenti teaches that particularly preferred according to the invention are melamine-formaldehyde resins (pg. 9, para. 3). Calenti provides a preparation of microencapsulated DCOIT forming melamine-formaldehyde wall polymers resulting in microcapsules (pg. 9, para. 3-4). With respect to the melamine-formaldehyde resin limitation, evidence from Sui shows that melamine formaldehyde (MF) is a versatile chemical cross-linking agent and has been broadly used in a number of encapsulation applications, due to its polycondensates providing a tight seal, thermal and mechanical stability and acid/alkaline resistance (pg. 29495, para. 2).
Regarding the OIT to the sum total of propiconazole and/or IPBC ratio limitation of claim 1 (i.e., 5:1 to 1:5), claim 16 (i.e., 1:1 to 1:5), and claim 17 (1:1.5 to 1:3), Calenti teaches that the concentration of the active component, i.e., biocide in the coating composition is between 0.01 wt.% and 18 wt.% based on total weight of the composition (pg. 10, para. 2). Calenti discloses that more than one biocide can be employed (title, abstract, claim 6, line 3).
Calenti does not provide amounts of each biocide out of a sum of other additional actives.
Wunder discloses silicone sealants which as a biocidal active comprise 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (OIT) and also comprise, where appropriate, one or more other biocides, the biocidal active being included in microparticles comprising an amino resin (abstract, [0001], claim 1). Wunder teaches ‘micro particles’ to signify a matrix of an amino resin, with the biocidal active being included in the matrix and/or enveloped by it and the term ‘microparticle' may also be applied to so-called microcapsules, in whose interior the biocidal active is included in encapsulated form ([0097]). Wunder explicitly teaches that in addition to the OIT and micro particles comprising a melamine-formaldehyde resin, the adhesive or sealant comprises as a further biocidal component at least one of the following actives to include propioconazole [sic] and IPBC ([0111], claim 14). Wunder teaches that the production of melamine-formaldehyde microparticles encompasses the use of melamine-formaldehyde pre-condensates which are water soluble and from which melamine-formaldehyde resin microparticles are produced from aqueous phase ([0128]).
Wunder discloses that OIT is present in amounts of 10% to 95% by weight and the other biocide or biocides are present in amounts of 5% to 90% by weight based in each case on the total amount of biocidal active present ([0043]). Wunder teaches in a further embodiment that the biocidal active included in the microparticles is composed predominantly of OIT, meaning that the biocidal active comprises OIT as its major constituent in an amount of greater than or equal to 95% by weight of OIT, based on the total mass of biocidal active, and it is possible for at least one further biocide to be present (e.g., isothiazolinone) ([0044]).
Wunder teaches preferred biocidal actives include OIT alone, DC-OIT alone, or one of these actives in combination with one or more biocides from the group consisting of IPBC, tebuconazole, DC-OIT ([0113]). Wunder discloses an embodiment in which OIT is used as the sole biocidal active, the active being present either completely in microparticles or else in encapsulated form and in unencapsulated form (for example, 50% by weight OIT encapsulated +50% by weight OIT unencapsulated) ([0114]). Wunder teaches that further biocides are used in the microparticles of the invention as a biocidal active besides OIT, and that this further biocide may be present together with OIT as a mixture in the microparticles ([0115]).
Wunder teaches that the microparticles comprise as biocidal active, OIT and one or more other biocides at a ratio of OIT to the other biocide or biocides in which the principle fluctuates and be varied within wide limits, as for example in the range from 100:1 to 1:100 ([0043]). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In addition, MPEP 2144.05 states that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Applicants have yet to provide evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the propiconazole and/or IPBC and ratio range taught by Wunder to the microcapsules of Calenti with expected results. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Wunder provides further provides for the use of microparticles that comprise the active OIT and, where appropriate, one or more other biocides and are based on an amino resin to protect adhesives and sealants from infestation by microorganisms ([0124]). Wunder shows that the composition emerged as being particularly effective, in the case of one embodiment of the invention, if the biocidal active comprises OIT ([0125]). Wunder adds that the advantage of this biocidal active also lies in the fact that OIT effectively prevents the infestation of the silicone rubber by algae, bacteria, and fungi ([0125]).
Regarding claim 2 (i.e., capsule material to biocide 1:4-4:1) and claim 3 (i.e., 1:4-1:1.5), Calenti teaches that the capsules consist of 50-90 wt.% of the core (active component) and 10-50 wt.% of polymeric membrane based on the total weight of the microcapsules and the size of the microcapsules is between 0.1-40 micrometers (pg. 7, para. 2; claim 4). Calenti teaches that the concentration of the active component, i.e. biocide in the coating composition (that has previously been microencapsulated) is between 0.01 wt.% and 18 wt.% based on total weight of the composition (pg. 5, para. 3; pg. 10, para. 2; claim 14). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Specifically regarding the further limiting narrower range of claim 3, Calenti teaches that a reduced ratio of melamine-formaldehyde polymer results in thinner capsules membrane and faster releasing of biocide (pg. 13, para. 2). Calenti shows a reduction of the ratio of melamine-formaldehyde polymer resulting in thinner capsules membrane and faster releasing of biocide (pg. 13, para. 2). As evidenced by Habar, depending on the weight ratio of the wall to the contents of the microcapsules can advantageously release active substances, maintain structural integrity and cost effectiveness ([0086]).
Regarding claim 8 (i.e., 0.3 to 100 µm), Calenti provides examples of the MF capsules, where the average particle size 2-20 µm with example micro-encapsulations with average particle size is 13 µm, 14 µm, and 15 µm (pg. 10-12, see Examples 1-3). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 9 (i.e., additional resins), while Calenti does not explicitly teach that the capsule material additionally comprises claimed species, Wunder teaches that amino resin is selected from the group consisting of melamine-, urea-, cyano- and dicyandiamide formaldehyde resins or a mixture of two or more of these resins ([0036], claim 7).
Regarding claim 10 (i.e., protective colloid), Calenti teaches preparing an aqueous phase wherein the aqueous phase comprises a mixture of at least one anionic or a non-ionic protective colloid (pg. 6, para. 3; pg. 8, para. 3-4; claims 6, 8).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calenti in view of Wunder, evidence by Sui and Habar as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17 above, further in view of Bryant (AU 2007317576) and Inoue (JP 5873790). Inoue is cited from the machine translation previously provided.
The teachings of Calenti, Wunder, Sui, and Habar above are incorporated herein.
Wunder teaches propioconazole [sic] and IPBC ([0111], [0113], claim 14). Wunder teaches that in a further embodiment of the invention the biocidal active included in the microparticles is composed substantially of 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (OIT); in other words, besides OIT, there may also be one or more other biocides present, but only in an amount such that there is no contribution of the respective biocide (different from OIT) to the overall effect of the resultant mixture ([0045]). If the biocidal activity of a biocidal active (biocide mixture) which besides OIT also has one or more further biocides as an essential constituent, in a subordinate or minor concentration, is unchanged relative to the use of OIT alone, as the sole biocide, this is referred to in the context of the present invention as substantially composed ([0045]). Wunder teaches that in a further embodiment the biocidal active may be composed of OIT as the sole biocidal active, i.e., an active content of 100% of OIT ([0046]). In such a case it is possible for there to be one or more further constituents present ([0046]).
Regarding claim 4 (i.e., OIT and propiconazole), claim 5 (i.e., >99% of b) is OIT and propiconazole), claim 7 (i.e., >99% of b) is OIT and IPBC), Calenti teaches OIT and IPBC.
Calenti does not teach propiconazole.
Bryant discloses a composition comprising (a) cyanodithiocarbimate and (b) at least one second microbicide selected from iodopropargyl butyl carbamate (IPBC); propiconazole; 2-N-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3 one (OIT) (abstract, claim 1). Bryant shows how each (b) active is used in combinations of (a) and the selected second microbicide ([0095] see Test 1, 2, and 3). Bryant discloses these combinations consisting of (a) with butyl carbamate (claim 9), or propiconazole (claim 10), or OIT (claim 11). Here, the prior art shows the pairing of one out of two actives (i.e., propiconazole or IPBC) with one other active that is present in each of the pairings.
Inoue discloses sustained release particles and a method to produce them (abstract). Specific embodiments of Inoue show that controlled release particles containing each of the following compounds solely: IPBC (pg. 15, last para.; pg. 16, para. 9, see Examples 1-2), OIT (pg. 16, last para., pg. 17, para. 9, see Examples 3-4), and 1- [2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-n-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole (Propiconazole) (pg. 18, para. 4, see Example 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bryant and Inoue in the microencapsulation of organic biocide taught by Calenti in view of Wunder with expected results. Inoue teaches encapsulating OIT, propiconazole, or IPBC and suggests that they can be used individually. Bryant provides a reason to combine and optimize. Bryant shows that when component (a) which is the same for all combinations with either OIT, propiconazole, or IPBC as the second microbicide, (b), are present in a synergistically microbicidal effective combined amount, the growth of at least one microorganism is controlled ([0012], claim 1).
Looking to Calenti and Wunder, a person skilled in the art would be motivated to substitute the component (a) of Bryant with OIT. While Calenti focuses on microcapsules of DCOIT (pg. 13, para. 1), Wunder shows that encapsulated OIT is notable for a greatly improved retention ([0176]). Importantly, Calenti and Wunder teach and suggest that OIT of the biocide are instrumental in the biocides effectiveness and advantageously provides an improvement over the use of heavy metals (i.e., copper) (see Calenti, pg. 2, para. 2; see Wunder [0022]) which would be of particular interest to industry as it relates to the health of the environment.
Response to Arguments
Declaration
Applicants attribute improved control of the leaching behavior of OIT to the combining of 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (OIT) with propiconazole, and OIT with 3-iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) (see Dec., no. 5). Applicants state that such leaching control was not observed when OIT was combined with other biocides such as tebuconazole and 1,2-benzothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT), respectively (see Dec., no. 6).
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue OIT with tebuconazole and 1,2-benzothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT) does not achieve the same leaching behavior compared to that of the claimed microcapsules (Remarks, pgs. 5-6, para. 1). Applicants argue that Wunder does not guide one to select the particular claimed combination and ratio of biocides as claimed which has demonstrated unexpected control over OIT's leaching from the microcapsule and that the same analysis applies to the disclosure of biocides in each of the other references cited by the Office (Remarks, pg. 7, para. 1).
Specifically regarding the declaration and considering unexpected results, propiconazole and/or IPBC were not incorporated into the OIT with tebuconazole and BIT. No data is provided in which co-biocides other than tebuconazole and BIT were tested to show criticality. In addition, Applicants do not provide statistical analysis. The data provided does not show statistical significance. MPEP 716.02(b)(I.) states that the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Mere conclusions that the claimed microcapsules had an unexpectedly improved leaching behavior is not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration. In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02(c).
Applicant is required to present a comparison with the closest prior art of record. There is no evidence showing that the combination OIT with tebuconazole and OIT with BIT is that of the prior art. Applicants should consider providing a comparison to prior art that teaches the combining of OIT with another/other biocide(s) to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. If there are co-biocides that exhibit the same effect, the claimed combinations do not have a special effect compared to other biocides. Showing unexpected results over one of two equally close prior art references will not rebut prima facie obviousness unless the teachings of the prior art references are sufficiently similar to each other that the testing of one showing unexpected results would provide the same information as to the other. Comparisons to the closest art without testing other biocides will not establish the criticality of the claimed b1) and b2). See MPEP 716.02(e).
Applicants disclose that “A quantity of the formulation comprising 500 ppm OIT (based on 100 g) was weighed (see Spec., pg. 15, line 4) but it is not clear what the concentration is for the co-biocides present in the microcapsules. One would expect more OIT to be released if more OIT is present. In Table 1, Example 1 (propiconazole:OIT, 5:1) shows more OIT being released compared to Example 4 where there is a 2:1 ratio of propriconazole:OIT. Without knowing the concentrations, Table 1 cannot be compared with Table 2 (OIT only). Further, the breadth of IPBC is not shown as Table 3 shows ratios 3:1 and 2:1 of IPBC:OIT only. As such, the data provided is not persuasively commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicants argue that Uhr ‘421 does not disclose OIT and that Negroni does not teach OIT (Remarks, pg. 5, footnote no. 1). Applicants argue that the Paint and Coatings Industry reference mentioning of OIT and IPBC as "more water-soluble" is not a suggestion or motivation to substitute the algicide of Uhr ‘421 which is required to be a triazine algicide, a urea algicide or a uracil algicide-with OIT (Remarks, pg. 5, footnote no. 1).
In response, Negroni and Paint and Coatings Industry references are no longer used.
Applicants argue that Calenti does not teach any particular mixtures of biocides (Remarks, pg. 5, footnote no. 2).
Calenti discloses that more than one biocide can be employed (title, abstract, claim 6, line 3).
For these reasons, Applicants’ arguments are found unpersuasive. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
All claims under consideration remain rejected; 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 extension fee 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 Karen Ketcham whose telephone number is (571)270-5896. The examiner can normally be reached 900-500 ET.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/Karen Ketcham/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614