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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
The claim amendments have overcome the previous claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konishi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0180619) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Konishi et al. discloses an aqueous foam (para. 9, 82 and Table 1), comprising:
at least one surfactant (para. 47, 82 and Table 1);
at least one defoamer (called anti-foaming agent) (para. 80); and
sodium hypochlorite (reads on a disinfectant, consistent with Applicant’s specification) (para. 45, 82, and Table 1);
the at least one surfactant, the at least one defoamer, and the sodium hypochlorite (disinfectant) being present such that the foam forms a fluid layer at an interface between the foam and a surface to which the foam is applied (in use the foam contacts a surface to clean the surface, see para. 88, 94-95, and because a foam is by definition a gas distributed in a liquid phase, i.e., a fluid, the foam necessarily forms a fluid layer at an interface between the foam and a surface to which the foam is applied).
Regarding claim 3, Konishi et al. discloses the disinfectant comprises sodium hypochlorite, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Konishi et al. discloses the at least one surfactant comprises sodium dodecyl sulfate (para. 49).
Regarding claim 5, Konishi et al. discloses the at least one surfactant comprises sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), as set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Konishi et al. discloses wherein the sodium hypochlorite (disinfectant) is present at 2 wt% (para. 82, Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Konishi et al. discloses wherein the foam comprises a viscosity modifier (para. 17).
Regarding claim 11, Konishi et al. discloses the foam according to claim 1, as set forth above.
As to the limitation of wherein the foam effects an essentially uniform application of the disinfectant to a surface to which the foam is applied, Konishi et al. does not expressly teach this feature; nonetheless, it has been held that when the claimed and prior art compositions are the same, the claimed properties are necessarily present in the prior art composition (MPEP 2112.02). In this case, the prior art discloses a composition that is identical to that claimed, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, and therefore the property of effecting an essentially uniform application of the disinfectant to a surface to which the foam is applied must necessarily be present. Therefore, Konishi et al. anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Konishi et al. discloses wherein during breaking, the foam remains in an essentially unchanged position on a surface to which the foam is applied (see minimal sagging discussed in para. 88, which is considered to read on the claimed essentially unchanged position, absent any special definition of this term).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0180619) (already of record) in view of Abel et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0052506).
Regarding claim 2, Konishi et al. discloses the sodium hypochlorite (disinfectant), as set forth above, and further discloses that the aqueous foam may further comprise an additional disinfectant (para. 17).
Konishi et al. is silent as to wherein the disinfectant comprises at least one of ammonia and benzalkonium chloride.
Abel et al. discloses a foam comprising sodium hypochlorite (Abstract, para. 55) and configured to reduce microorganisms on a surface to which it is applied (para. 17). Abel et al. further discloses wherein the composition may comprise benzalkonium chloride as a preservative (para. 119-120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disinfectant disclosed by Konishi et al. to further comprise benzalkonium chloride, as Abel et al. discloses that it was known in the art to include benzalkonium chloride in a sodium hypochlorite-containing foam as a preservative, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include a preservative to enhance the stability of the composition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0180619) (already of record) in view of Dory et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0111804) (already of record).
Regarding claim 6, Konishi et al. discloses the at least one defoamer, as set forth above.
Konishi et al. is silent as to the at least one defoamer comprising polyethylene glycol.
Dory et al. discloses that it was known in the art to use a variety of defoamers, including polyethylene glycol (para. 71), in an aqueous cleaning composition comprising a surfactant (para. 67, 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foam disclosed by Konishi et al. such that the at least one defoamer comprises polyethylene glycol, based on the teachings of Dory et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a particular defoamer recognized in the art to be effective in a composition comprising at least one surfactant.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0180619) (already of record) in view of Somasundaran et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0128322) (already of record).
Regarding claim 8, Konishi et al. discloses wherein the foam is configured to be applied to a surface for cleaning, as set forth above.
Konishi et al. is silent as to wherein the foam exhibits an average bubble size of from about 250 µm to about 4mm.
Somasundaran et al. discloses a foam comprising a surfactant (para. 20), the foam configured to be applied to a surface for cleaning (Abstract), wherein the foam has a “fine texture” exhibiting an average bubble size in the range of 500 nm to 5 mm “which allows for more efficient decontamination of the surface to which the foam is applied” (para. 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foam disclosed by Konishi et al. to have a fine texture, exhibiting an average bubble size of from 500 nm to 5 mm, as Somasundaran et al. discloses that a foam having such a bubble size allows for more efficient decontamination of the surface to which the foam is applied, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance the cleaning efficiency of the foam.
Although the prior art combination does not expressly teach the claimed range of about 250 µm to about 4mm, it has been held that a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a narrower claim range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). The claim range is obvious in view of the prior art because the prior art discloses a bubble size range encompassing the slightly narrower range defined by the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Konishi et al. in view of Somasundaran et al. teaches wherein the foam exhibits an average bubble size of from 500 nm to 5 mm, as set forth above.
Although the prior art combination does not expressly teach the claimed range of about 500 µm to about 3 mm, it has been held that a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a narrower claim range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). The claim range is obvious in view of the prior art because the prior art discloses a bubble size range encompassing the slightly narrower range defined by the claim.
Conclusion
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 HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799