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 .
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.
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment of 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16, 19-20, and 22 are amended; claims 1-13, 17-18, and 21 are cancelled; and claim 23 is new. Claims 14-16, 19-20, and 22-23 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
An election of invention/species was required in the instant application as detailed in the Office action dated 04/02/2025. The election is maintained and claim 22 remains withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 14-16, 19-20, and 23 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/IT2020/000044 filed on 05/28/2020 as reflected in the filing receipt dated on 06/15/2023.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the previous objection to the title. Thus, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-2 and 17-18 have rendered moot the previous objections to these claims. Applicant’s amendment to claims 14-16 and 19-20 to recite “The aqueous” composition have overcome the previous objection to the claims. Thus, the objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2 and 17-18 has rendered moot the previous 112(b) rejections. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome/rendered moot the previous 103 rejections. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The following grounds of objection/rejection are new or modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16, 19-20, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14-16 and 19-20, in line 3 of each, recite the limitation “by weight on the total weight of the composition”, which appears to be a grammatical error. The claims should read “by weight based on the total weight of the composition”.
Claim 16, line 3, recites an arbitrary space between the terms "0.8" and "%"
which should be removed. Further, the claim is missing a comma following the percent (%) sign.
Claim 23 recites “Aqueous disinfectant and detergent composition”. Because the composition of claims 14-26 and 19-20 depend from claim 23, the claim should recite “An aqueous disinfectant and detergent composition”.
Claim 23 recites an extraneous space between the term “of” and the subsequent colon “:” which should be removed.
Claim 23 recites commas after the terms “imidazolidinyl urea”, “o-cymen-5-ol”, and “cetrimonium chloride” and after the concentration ranges of g) and h), which should be replaced with semicolons to remain consistent with the remainder of the claim. The terms “surfactant”, “chelating agent”, “solubilizer of o-cymen-5-ol”, and “sodium chloride” and the concentration ranges of components c) and d) should also be followed by semicolons. Because “magnesium chloride” is the second-to-last recited component of the composition, the term “and” should follow the component.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks dated 12/11/2025 are acknowledged. Unless indicated above under “Withdrawn Objections and Rejections”, the previous objections are maintained as Applicant has not made the proper correction to the claims, nor has Applicant provided any arguments over the objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-16, 19-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14-16 and 19 each recite the transitional phrase “containing”, which is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. However, the claims depend from claim 23, which recites a composition “consisting of” components a) through k), which excludes any element or ingredient not specified in the claim. The claims are indefinite because they improperly broaden the scope of the claim upon which they depend. To remain consistent with the closed language recited in the parent claim, the Examiner recommends amending the claims to reflect language similar to that recited in claim 20. Using claim 14 as an example: “The aqueous disinfectant and detergent composition according to claim 23, wherein imidazolidinyl urea is present at a concentration between 0.1 to 0.6% by weight based on the total weight of the composition”.
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 recite the plural limitations “at concentrations ranging from” or “at concentrations comprised between”. However, the claims depend from claim 23, which recites “the concentration” of each component. Therefore, it is unclear if each component is required to be present at a single concentration within the claimed range or whether each component is required to simultaneously be present at multiple concentrations within the claimed range, which would improperly broaden the scope of the claim upon which they depend. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite wherein the ingredient is present “at a concentration between…”.
Claim 23 recites an aqueous composition consisting of components a) through k), wherein each component is present at within the claimed concentration range. However, even if each ingredient were present at the highest concentration within each recited range, the total amount of all claimed components would only equal 25.9075% by weight, which is less than 100% by weight based on the total composition weight. Because the claim recites the transitional phrase “consisting of”, which excludes any element or ingredient not specified in the claim, it is unclear what makes up the remainder of the composition. Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, and because the claim recites an aqueous composition, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to mean that the rest of the composition consists of water, as is consistent with Applicant’s instant specification, which states that the term “aqueous composition” refers to a water-based composition (Page 3, lines 19-21). Applicant is reminded that no new matter should be introduced.
Claims 14-19 and 20-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 23, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “each component a)-f) is comprised in the following weight ranges” in lines 14-15. The claim also recites concentration ranges for components g) through k), so it is unclear whether the limitation wherein the weight ranges are “based on the total composition weight” also applies to the concentrations of components g) through k) or only to components a) through f). Because there is ambiguity as to whether the percentages recited in relation to components g) through k) indicate total composition weight or component weight, etc., the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. Further, the term “comprised” represents open claim language. The claim is further rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear whether each component must be present within the recited concentration range or if other unrecited concentrations are permitted.
Claims 14-19 and 20-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 23, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the active substance” in lines 16, 17, and 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the preceding portion of the claim does not recite “an active substance”. To clarify the concentration limitation associated with each component of the composition, and to simplify the claim language, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to the following format:
“An aqueous disinfectant and detergent composition for glasses consisting of the following components, by weight based on the total weight of the composition:
0.1 to 1% imidazolidinyl urea;
0.005 to 0.5% o-cymen-5-ol;
0.05 to 1% cetrimonium chloride;
0.1 to 2% sodium cocoamphoacetate;
0.05 to 1% disodium-EDTA;
1 to 20% denatured alcohol;
0.0005 to 0.005% methylchloroisothiazolinone;
0.0001 to 0.001% methylisothiazolinone;
0.0001 to 0.0005% magnesium nitrate;
0.0001 to 0.001% magnesium chloride; and
0.05 to 0.4% sodium chloride.”
Claims 14-19 and 20-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 23, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question.
Claim 23 is missing a period at the end of the claim. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim is complete, and therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 14-19 and 20-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 23, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question.
Claim Interpretation
The claims and instant specification do not provide a definition for the term “EDTA” as recited in instant claims 20 and 23. Consistent with the plain meaning of the term within the field of endeavor of the claimed invention, the term “EDTA” is interpreted to mean “ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid”.
Closest Prior Art
The Examiner notes that Tao et al. (CN104126596A; published: 11/05/2014; PTO-892 of 07/24/2025) represents the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Tao discloses an antibacterial composition comprising: 9% by weight methylisothiazolinone; 1% by weight methylchloroisothiazolinone; 3% by weight 2,2-dibromo-2-nitroethanol; 0.25% by weight imidazolidinyl urea; 0.3% by weight EDTA; 1.0% by weight quaternary ammonium salt type cationic surfactant; and 85.45% by weight water (Table 2, Example 2); and discloses disodium EDTA as the preferred EDTA salt (Paragraph 0045). The aqueous composition of Tao reads on instantly claimed components h), g), a), and e), respectively. As discussed above, the Examiner is interpreting the instant claims to permit the inclusion of water.
While the concentrations of imidazolidinyl urea and disodium EDTA read on those as instantly claimed, Tao does not expressly teach that the composition comprises the instantly claimed concentrations of methylisothiazolinone or methylchloroisothiazolinone, nor does Tao expressly teach that the composition further comprises o-cymen-5-ol, cetrimonium chloride as the quaternary ammonium salt, sodium cocoamphoacetate, denatured alcohol, magnesium nitrate, magnesium chloride, and sodium chloride in the instantly claimed amounts. Moreover, the reference provides no reasonable motivation to exclude 2,2-dibromo-2-nitroethanol from its composition.
In view of the instant claim language “consisting of”, which excludes any element or ingredient not specified in the claims, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to modify Tao in a manner which would prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the instantly claimed composition. Modification of Tao to arrive a composition having only those components recited in the instant claims would require too much impermissible hindsight, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to make such modifications without looking to Applicant’s instant disclosure.
Conclusion
No claim is 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 SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SARAH C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616