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 . Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1, 2 and 4-7.
Applicants' arguments, filed 10/02/2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
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.
1. Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 2019/0045793, Feb. 14, 2019) (of record) in view of Tatsuhiko et al. (JP 3829640 B, Oct. 4, 2006) (IDS reference) (hereinafter Tatsuhiko).
Sugiura discloses an antiviral agent that includes an inorganic solid acid. The inorganic solid acid preferably includes an inorganic phosphoric acid compound, an inorganic silicic acid compound, or an inorganic oxide (abstract). Suitable inorganic solid acids include phosphoric acid compounds of titanium group elements such as titanium phosphate (¶ [0041]). The antiviral agent can contain silver, copper, or both. The antiviral agent may be a mixture of silver or copper, or compounds thereof, with an inorganic solid acid containing no silver or copper (¶ [0050]). Influenza viruses and the like can be inactivated by using the antiviral agent (¶ [0156]). Suitable influenza viruses include influenza A virus (i.e., virus belonging to the family Orthomyxoviridae) (¶ [0099]). To formulate an α-type silver copper zirconium phosphate, a 15% aqueous zirconium oxychloride solution was added to a 75% aqueous phosphoric acid solution, and the mixed solution was aged at 100°C for 12 hours. Thereafter, the obtained precipitate was washed with water and recovered. Next, this precipitate was stirred in an aqueous silver nitrate and copper nitrate solution at 100°C for 2 hours. Thereafter, the obtained precipitate was filtered, washed with water, dried, and crushed to obtain an α-type silver copper zirconium phosphate powder (¶¶¶ [0110], [0111], and [0115]). The antiviral agent can be used in combination with antibacterial agents (¶ [0060]).
Sugiura differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the antiviral agent comprises a titanium phosphate represented by Ti(OH)x(PO4)y(HPO4)z(H2PO4)l(OR)m.
However, Tatsuhiko discloses an antibacterial agent comprising a titanium phosphate-based compound or a condensate thereof with the formula: Ti(OH)x(PO4)y(HPO4)z(H2PO4)l(OR)m, wherein R is an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, x = 0, 1, 2, or 3, y = 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4, z = 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, l = 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, m = 0, 1, 2, or 3, x+3y+2z+l+m = 4, and y+z+l is always 1 or more (claim 1).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Sugiura discloses wherein the antiviral agent comprises titanium phosphate, which may be used in combination with an antibacterial agent. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the titanium phosphate of Tatsuhiko into the antiviral agent of Sugiura since it is a known and effective titanium phosphate that also has antibacterial properties as taught by Tatsuhiko.
In regards to instant claim 1 reciting wherein the antiviral agent comprises both the titanium phosphate and the inorganic silicic acid compound, since Sugiura discloses the use of various inorganic solid acids individually, the use of the individual species in combination would have been obvious since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by Sugiura to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose; the idea for combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06.
In regards to instant claim 6 reciting wherein the antiviral agent is used for cosmetics, disinfectants, or detergents, this is merely a recitation of the intended use of the antiviral agent. Since a disinfectant is an agent that destroys pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi and the antiviral agent destroys viruses, the antiviral agent is capable of being used as a disinfectant, whether the prior art discloses such use or not.
In regards to instant claim 7 reciting mixing the silicic acid compound, the silver compound, and the copper compound in this order, in a liquid containing the titanium phosphate compound, Sugiura does not disclose mixing in this order but does disclose mixing the compounds together, as discussed above. Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). Therefore, the claim is obvious even though Sugiura does not disclose the exact order of mixing.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 2019/0045793, Feb. 14, 2019) (of record) in view of Tatsuhiko et al. (JP 3829640 B, Oct. 4, 2006) (IDS reference) (hereinafter Tatsuhiko), and further in view of Kiani (WO 2018/203879 A1, Nov. 8, 2018).
The teachings of Sugiura and Tatsuhiko are discussed above. Sugiura and Tatsuhiko do not specifically teach wherein the antiviral agent comprises silver nitrate.
However, Kiani discloses an antiviral composition comprising a silver-containing substance such as silver nitrate (abstract).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Sugiura discloses wherein the antiviral agent may contain a silver compound. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated silver nitrate into the antiviral agent of Sugiura since it is a known and effective silver compound suitable for an antiviral composition as taught by Kiani.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that none of the antiviral agents exemplified in Sugiura includes titanium phosphate.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. A prior art reference is evaluated for all that it reasonably suggests and is not limited to working examples. As discussed above, Sugiura discloses an antiviral agent that includes an inorganic solid acid (abstract). Suitable inorganic solid acids include phosphoric acid compounds of titanium group elements such as titanium phosphate (¶ [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Sugiura’s antiviral agent to comprise titanium phosphate and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that as demonstrated in Sugiura, not all inorganic silicate compounds can be uniformly used as antiviral agents.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Since Sugiura discloses in the examples which inorganic silicate compounds can be used as antiviral agents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the inorganic silicate compounds exemplified by Sugiura as being antiviral. The instant claims do not exclude the inorganic silicate compounds exemplified by Sugiura that have antiviral properties. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the antiviral agents do not exhibit antiviral effects against all viruses.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The instant claims as currently recited do not require the antiviral agent to only be effective against the viruses recited. Therefore, an antiviral agent that is effective against all viruses or against at least one of the viruses claimed meets the claimed limitation. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Also, Applicant’s argument is further unpersuasive since objective evidence must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value. See MPEP 716.01(c). Therefore, Applicant’s showing in the arguments is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
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 TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614