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 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 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, 9, 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20090148540 A1) in view of Earl (US 5364512 A) as submitted on Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement filed 30 December 2022, and in further view of Arata (US 20030198689 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 1, Martin discloses an electrolytic method of synthesizing a disinfectant composition (abstract) comprising: (a) providing an electrochemical cell containing at least one cathode ([0046],[0049]), at least one anode ([0051]), and an electrolyte solution ([0051])cathode and said at least one anode to react cation forms of the two different metal with anion (citrate, [0051]) contained in the electrolyte solution, thereby forming the multi-metal salt (copper/silver citrate, [0051]); (c) combining multi-metal salt with a chelating agent (citric acid, [0051]), thereby forming a disinfectant composition, wherein the chelating agent is optionally contained within said electrolyte solution, and (d) recovering said disinfectant composition (“The copper citrate and copper/silver citrate combinations can be used combined with other components to prepare a variety of disinfection products” [0051]).
While Martin discloses two anodes (silver anode and copper anode; [0051]), Martin does not disclose wherein at least one anode contains two different metals.
Earl pertains to electrochemical ionization systems for purifying water to eliminate algae and bacteria (col. 1, lines 6-13) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Martin. Earl discloses a copper-silver alloy electrode (col. 1, lines 13-17). 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 separate copper and silver anodes of Martin with the copper-silver alloy anode of Earl because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (providing destruction of bacteria and/or algae, disinfection), 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).
While Martin discloses citric acid as the chelating agent, Martin in view of Earl does not disclose a chelating agent from the instantly claimed list.
Arata pertains to electrolytically generating disinfectants (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Martin. Arata discloses using an organic acid complex ([0048]; a complexing agent is a chelating agent) and the organic acid complex may comprise citric acid, malic acid or other organic acids. 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 citric acid of Martin with Arata’s malic acid because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (complexants for forming a complex with metal ions), 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). Furthermore, Martin mentions that carboxylates would provide stable solutions ([0042]).
In regards to claim(s) 2-4, Martin discloses silver and copper salts ([0051]).
In regards to claim(s) 9, Martin discloses copper and silver citrates ([0051]), which can be the same or different concentrations.
In regards to claim(s) 11-12, Martin discloses 5% organic acid solution ([0051]).
In regards to claim(s) 14, Martin discloses 22 V (claim 7).
In regards to claim(s) 15, Martin discloses room temperature (claim 7).
In regards to claim(s) 16, Martin discloses a batch process (in a copper vessel for 2 hours, claim 7).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Earl and Arata, and in further view of Ni (CN 108107930 A).
In regards to claim(s) 5-7, Martin does not disclose swapping one of copper or silver ions for zinc ions, or using all 3 types of ions.
Ni pertains to electrolytic sterilization solution production ([0006]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Martin and Earl. Ni discloses the produced metals are silver ions, copper ions or zinc ions ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add zinc ion as a third ion or substitute zinc ion for one of copper or silver ions in Martin’s solution because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (killing bacteria, sterilization) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A) & (B).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Earl and Arata, and in further view of Arata (US 20040044073 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 8, even though a 5% citric acid is used in Martin, Martin does not disclose the concentration of multi-metal salt.
Arata’073 pertains to electrolytically generated silver citrate ([0072]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Martin. Arata’073 discloses 0.003% electrolytically generated silver citrate ([0072]). 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 concentration of silver citrate of Martin with Arata’073’s 0.003% concentration of silver citrate because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (killing bacteria) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Earl and Arata, and in further view of Yoon (KR20080095121A).
In regards to claim(s) 13, Martin in view of Earl discloses a disinfection solution and Martin discloses that “the copper citrate and copper/silver citrate combinations can be used combined with other components to prepare a variety of disinfection products, as will be apparent to anyone experienced in this field.” ([0051]), but does not disclose the pH of the solution being 6 to 8.
Yoon pertains to microorganism deactivation systems using silver ions (description, [1]-[2]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Martin and Earl. Yoon disclose an effective solution having pH of 7.1 (p. 6). 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 pH of the disinfection solution of Martin with Yoon’s pH of 7.1 because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (metal ions killing bacteria) 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 filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered. Due to Applicant’s Amendments to the claims, new prior art has been applied, see rejection grounds above.
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 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