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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed 07/17/2025 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “An” should be “A”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The amendment filed 07/14/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
[0078] A solution of Formula I diluted to 8000 ppm has about 1568 ppm hydrogen peroxide, about 1344 ppm acetic acid, and about 824 ppm peracetic acid.
[0079] In sone embodiments, the diluted aqueous cleansing composition has a peracetic acid concentration of between about 100 ppm and 1,000 ppm. In some embodiments, the diluted aqueous cleaning composition has a hydrogen peroxide concentration of between about 190 ppm and about 1,902 ppm. In some embodiments, the diluted aqueous cleansing composition has an acetic acid concentration of between about 163 ppm and about 1,631 ppm.
[0078] to [0080]
[0079] to [0081]
[0080] to [0082]
[0081] to [0083]
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 25, 27, 29-31, 37 and 39 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 An diluted aqueous cleansing composition , comprising:
Hydrogen peroxide in an amount ranging from about 190 ppm to about 1902 ppm, acetic acid in an amount ranging from about 163 ppm to about 1631 ppm, and peracetic acid in an amount ranging from about 100 ppm to about 1000 ppm.
Claim 39. The diluted aqueous cleansing composition of claim 1, comprising: hydrogen peroxide in an amount of about 1568 ppm, acetic acid in an amount of about 1344 ppm, and peracetic in an amount of about 824 ppm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-25, 27, 29-35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmadpour et al. (US Patent Pub. 2018/0235231). This rejection is maintained. Claims 2-24 and 32-35 are cancelled. New claim 39 is included in this rejection.
Rejection
Ahmadpour et al. disclose an aqueous disinfecting solution and uses and methods of disinfection and sanitization employing same (ABSTRACT). Ahmadpour et al. disclose the solution comprises hydrogen peroxide, ethyl hydroperoxide and peracetic acid at a concentration of about 0.01 to 4 wt.% ([0039], [0041] and [0042]). Ahmadpour et al. disclose the solution comprises carboxylic acids such as, citric acid and acetic acid at a concentration of from about 0.05 to 5 wt.% ([0057] and [0058]). Ahmadpour et al. disclose the solution comprises dipicolinic acid at a concentration of about 0.05 to 40 wt. % ([0061] and [0062]). Ahmadpour et al. disclose the solution comprises calcium carbonate at a concentration of 0.1 up to about 15 wt.% ([0037]). Ahmadpour et al. disclose the solutions are formulated in concentrated or solid form, such as tablets or powders ([0085]). Ahmadpour et al. disclose the solutions can be used on animate and inanimate surfaces including medical tools and devices, which would meet the limitation of dental prosthetic or removable orthodontic devices ([0120]).
The prior art discloses the use of 0.01 to 4wt.% hydrogen peroxide, 0.05 to 5 wt.% carboxylic acids, and 0.01 to 4 wt. % peracetic acid. Thus, the prior art differs from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the particular endpoints recited therein, i.e. 125 ppm to about 25% by weight hydrogen peroxide, 150 ppm to about 30% by weight carboxylic acids, and 100 ppm to about 20% by weight peracids. It is well-settled, however, that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, since an overlap plainly exists here, it would have been obvious to have selected values within the overlap, consistent with the reasoning of the Peterson decision.
Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues Ahmadpour does not disclose a single example of a diluted solution having hydrogen peroxide in an amount ranging from about 190 ppm to about 1902 ppm, acetic acid in an amount ranging from about 163 ppm to about 1631 ppm, and peracetic acid in an amount ranging from about 100 ppm to about 1000 ppm. Applicant argues there is not teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Ahmadpour to arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner’s Response
Ahmadpour, as previously disclosed, teaches a compositions comprising 0.01 wt.% to 4 wt. % )10 ppm to 40,000 ppm) hydrogen peroxide, 0.05 et. % to 5 wt. % (50 ppm to 50,000 ppm) carboxylic acids, and 0.01 wt. % to 4 wt. % peracetic acid (100 ppm to 40,000 ppm).
The prior art discloses the use of 0.01 to 4wt.% hydrogen peroxide, 0.05 to 5 wt.% carboxylic acids, and 0.01 to 4 wt. % peracetic acid. Thus, the prior art differs from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the particular endpoints recited therein, i.e. 190 ppm to about 1902 ppm hydrogen peroxide, 1163 ppm to about 1631 ppm carboxylic acids, and 100 ppm to about 1000 ppm peracids. It is well-settled, however, that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
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. Therefore, it would be obvious to have varied the amount of the components within the composition motivated by the desire to achieve the desired effect. Therefore meeting the limitation of instant claim 39.
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 NANNETTE HOLLOMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Frederick Krass can be reached at (571)272-0580. 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.
/NANNETTE HOLLOMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612