DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 10, 15, and 20 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 6-9), filed 08/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vazquez (MX 2010008389 A), and further in view of Lin (Appl Environ Microbiol, 2002).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority of U.S. Provisional Application 63/233161 filed 08/13/2021 and U.S. Provisional Application 63/234593 filed 08/18/2021.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Regarding claim 1, Application No. 63/233161 does not teach a copper nitrate or zinc nitrate. Claims 2, 10, 15, and 20 are dependent on claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 10, 15, and 20 are considered to have an effective filing date of 08/18/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/21/2026 has been considered.
New 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.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez (MX 2010008389 A).
Regarding claim 1, Vazquez teaches a germicide (i.e., disinfectant) solution comprising a combination of two or more chemicals which can be silver nitrate, copper nitrate, and zinc nitrate, wherein the chemicals are dissolved in water (Vazquez, abstract). Vazquez does not teach nanoparticles, and it would therefore be reasonable to expect that the composition does not contain nanoparticles as claimed.
Vazquez is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both Vazquez and the instant invention are in the same field of disinfectant compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Vazquez under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 2, Vazquez teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Vazquez teaches dissolving the two or more chemicals in water with an organic stabilizer (Vazquez, abstract), and further teaches an organic stabilizer to be citric acid (Vazquez, page 8, paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 10, Vazquez teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Vazquez teaches concentrations of 0.05-3 mg/L of the silver (i.e., 0.005-0.3 wt%), 0.025-1.5 mg/L of the copper (i.e., 0.0025-0.15 wt%), and 0.025-2 mg/L of the zinc (i.e., 0.0025-0.2 wt%), which each lie within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Vazquez teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Vazquez teaches a formulation which constitutes a powerful broad-spectrum germicide that effectively combats virtually all types of bacteria, viruses, and fungi (i.e., pathogens; Vazquez, page 1, paragraph 0001), but does not measure a pathogen kill rate. The U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez (MX 2010008389 A) as applied to claims 1-2, 10, and 20, further in view of Lin (Appl Environ Microbiol, 2002).
Regarding claim 15, Vazquez teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Vazquez teaches a solution comprising the claimed components, but does not teach a specific pH of the solution. Lin, however teaches a pH-dependent effect on biocidal efficacy of copper and silver ions in controlling bacterial growth, with a pH of 7 showing the best result (Lin, abstract).
Vazquez and Lin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Vazquez, Lin, and the instant invention are in the same field of disinfectant compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the pH of the solution taught by Vazquez within the range taught by Lin, because Vazquez teaches the use of organic acids (Vazquez, abstract), but does not specify an amount, while Lin teaches it is known in the field that biocidal efficacy is pH-dependent (Lin, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights