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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 requires EDTA, which was deleted from independent claim 1 from which it depends upon. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 11-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganesov (RU 2737941 C1) in view of Nagayama (JP 2005002033 A).
In regards to claim(s) 1, Oganesov discloses a method of synthesizing a disinfectant composition (disinfectant aqueous solution; abstract) comprising providing an electrochemical cell containing at least one cathode (while Oganesov does not disclose the term “cathode,” a cathode is necessarily present to perform electrolysis, abstract) and at least one anode containing at least two different metals (anode from silver and copper alloy in any ratio of weights; abstract), and an electrolyte solution (addition of NaCl, claim 3), applying a voltage to react cations forms of the two metal with anion contained in the electrolyte solution, thereby forming the multi-metal salt (“by means of electrolysis, the formation of silver ions Ag+ and copper ions Cu2+ is carried out, from which, using chlorine ions Cl-, silver chloride AgCl and copper chloride CuCl2 are formed”, claim 3), after forming the multi-metal salt in the electrolyte solution, combining the multi-metal salt with a chelating agent (“then the ligand is added, which is used as ammonia or ammonia water, under its influence dissolve silver chloride AgCl and copper chloride CuCl2 and obtain ammonia complexes”, claim 3), thereby forming a disinfecting composition, and recovering the disinfecting composition (for use, first paragraph of description, p. 1).
While Oganesov discloses a number of ligands (“ammonia, or ammonia water, or ammonium persulphate, or sodium thiosulphate, or citric acid, or acetic acid, or orthophosphoric acid, or nitric acid”; abstract), Oganesov does not disclose an instantly claimed chelating agent.
Nagayama pertains to a degerming agent comprising metals including copper and silver, a salt of them and a complex of them are preferable (abstract), and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Oganesov. Nagayama discloses a number of complexing agents for copper, such as “acidic amino acids, citric acid, malic acid, fumaric acid, oxaloacetic acid and the like.” [0010] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the complexing agent of Oganesov with Nagayama’s oxaloacetic acid because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (to complex metal ions, such as silver and copper), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B). Each complexing agents would have provided the predictable and desired result of complexing copper and silver ions.
In regards to claim(s) 2-4, Oganesov discloses silver chloride AgCl and copper chloride CuCl2.
In regards to claim(s) 8-9, Oganesov discloses vol.%: silver ions 0.1⋅10-5-1.0 copper ions 0.1⋅10-5
- 2.0 (claim 3).
In regards to claim(s) 11-12, Oganesov discloses the chelating agent “is brought to a level exceeding stoichiometric by at least 1%” (claim 3), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 0.1:100 to about 50:100 or 0.5:100 to about 10:100 and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.
In regards to claim(s) 15, absence any mention of any temperature control (heating or cooling), Oganesov’s process would be at room temperature.
In regards to claim(s) 16, Oganesov discloses splitting the solution into three different flasks (example 1) and therefore is a batch process.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganesov in view of Nagayama, and in further view of Goradia (WO 2022201200 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 5-7, Oganesov in view of Nagayama does not disclose a zinc salt (resulting from a zinc anode).
Goradia pertains to antimicrobial formulations of electrolytically generated transition metal ions (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Oganesov. Goradia discloses “In the Electrochemical setup for the generation of ions, the electrolysis process entails the steps of using neutral salts or carboxylic acids selected from a group of citric acid, oleic acid and long chain carboxylic acids/fatty acids as an electrolytic solution and transition metal selected from a group of zinc, copper and silver metals as electrodes.” ([0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silver and copper anodes of Oganesov with the silver, copper and zine electrodes of Goradia because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (each metal electrode is a source of metal ion, generated by electrolysis) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
In regards to claim(s) 13, Oganesov does not disclose the pH of the disinfectant composition.
Goradia pertains to antimicrobial formulations of electrolytically generated transition metal ions (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Oganesov. Goradia discloses an anti microbial formulation of near neutral pH (claim 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of Oganesov with Goradia’s pH because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (to prepare the formulation for disinfectant use) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
In regards to claim(s) 14, Oganesov does not disclose wherein the voltage applied is from about 0.1 V to about 1000 V.
Goradia discloses applying 2-30 V (claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of Oganesov with Goradia’s voltage because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (voltage applied to generate ions electrochemically) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goradia’683 (US 11939683 B2) discloses chelating agents such as EDTA (col. 3, lines 43-53).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights