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 .
Status of the Claims
Acknowledgement is made of the response filed on December 31, 2025. In that response, claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14 were amended. Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18-23, and 25 are treated on the merits in this action. Claims 26-28 remain withdrawn.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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “being” should be “is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gohl (US 2017/0081618).
Gohl teaches “antimicrobial composition incorporating novel sulfoperoxycarboxylic acid compounds” (abstract; see title; paras.0077-96, 0133-36, 0166-68, 0195-202). The compositions comprise a sulfoperoxycarboxylic acid of formula I (paras.0058, 0061), an oxidizing agent specifically including hydrogen peroxide (para.0084), a carboxylic acid specifically including formic and other acids having a pKa between 1 and 6 (para. 0091), an acidulant specifically including organic sulfonic acids to achieve a pH of about 2 to 5 (para.0134), and a carrier such as those in instant claim 19 (paras. 0166-68). The “acidulant selected can also function as a stabilizing agent” (para.0135). In one embodiment the oxidizing agent comprises 5-30 wt.% and the carboxylic acid comprises 1-20 wt.%, meaning a hydrogen peroxide source to peroxide adjuvant ratio of 5:1 for example (para.0083 Table C rt. col.; see paras. 0085, 0092, 0136). The compositions can be used for wiping food processing and medical industrial surfaces among others (paras.0198-202).
Regarding claim 20 which recites a 4 log10 reduction of C. difficile when tested as recited, it is noted that a “chemical composition and its properties are inseparable”. MPEP § 2112.01(II). For product claims, “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”. MPEP §2112.01(I). Therefore Gohl’s antimicrobial composition is presumed to exhibit antimicrobial effects in claim 20. Furthermore the following is noted:
Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
(D) contingent limitations,
(E) printed matter, or
(F) terms with associated functional language.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive... For more information about these types of claim language and how to determine whether they have a limiting effect on claim scope, see MPEP §§ 2111.02 through 2111.05.
MPEP §2103(I)(C) (emphases added). Here claim 1 from which claim 20 depends does not recite the specific identities or the relative concentrations of the hydrogen peroxide source, peroxide adjuvant (which “comprises” and therefore is not limited to the formic acid), and the organic sulfonic acid, which obtain the efficacy in claim 20. Thus they do not limit the scope of the claim and are not afforded patentable weight. As discussed above Gohl teaches antimicrobial and sanitizing efficacy of its compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gohl is drawn to laundry detergents comprising acetic and peracetic acids and therefore fails to anticipate instant claims. (Remarks, 5-6, December 31, 2025.)
In response it is noted that Gohl teaches “antimicrobial composition” including laundry detergents (abstract (emphasis added)), comprising a novel sulfoperoxycarboxylic acid (paras.0058, 0061), an oxidizing agent specifically including hydrogen peroxide (para.0084), a carboxylic acid specifically including formic and other acids having a pKa between 1 and 6 (para. 0091), an acidulant specifically including organic sulfonic acids to achieve a pH of about 2 to 5 (para.0134), and a carrier such as those in instant claim 19 (paras. 0166-68). The oxidizing agent can comprise 5-30 wt.% and the carboxylic acid comprises 1-20 wt.%, meaning a hydrogen peroxide source to peroxide adjuvant ratio of 5:1 for example (para.0083 Table C rt. col.). Gohl mentions various uses of acetic and peracetic acids, e.g., as alternative acidulants or intermediate reagents (paras. 0087, 0094, 0134), however Gohl nowhere requires any of acetic and peracetic acids, or chlorine bleach. Furthermore, while a reference’s teaching is not limited to its example formulations, Gohl teaches example formulations which do not contain any of acetic and peracetic acids and chlorine bleach (see, e.g., para.0231 Formulas A through C).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gohl (US 2017/0081618).
Regarding claims 21 and 25 Gohl does not specifically teach applying the composition to a liquid absorbent substrate to be absorbed therein, and then contacting the same with a surface to be cleaned. However it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to do so due to (i) the prevalence of antimicrobial surface wipes in everyday use such as the CloroxTM and Lysol® brand of disinfecting wipes as well as diaper wipes, the Swiffer® wipes, etc., and (ii) Gohl’s express teaching that its antimicrobial composition can soak into various types of textile (paras.0039, 0204), and can be used in “wiping” contaminated surfaces (paras.0199, 0202).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gohl’s Formula A, which outperformed commercially available disinfectants, includes peracetic acid. (Remarks, 6 (citing Gohl para.0255), December 31, 2025.)
In response it is noted first that Gohl nowhere requires any of acetic and peracetic acids, or chlorine bleach. Second, Gohl teaches numerous other example formulations, including other formulas named “Formula A”, which do not contain any of acetic and peracetic acids and chlorine bleach (see, e.g., para.0231 Formulas A through C, paras.0252 Formula A and B, Fig. 4, para.0290 Formulas A and B, paras.0325- Formulas G and H). Third, Gohl demonstrates “antimicrobial efficacy of various sulfonated peracids”, independent of using acetic or peracetic acids, or chlorine bleach (Example 16, paras.0321-24; see, e.g., Examples 17-20). Therefore it cannot be agreed that Gohl requires or attaches any importance to acetic or peracetic acids, or chlorine bleach as Applicant argues.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 H. S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-5258. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays.
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.
/H. SARAH PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614