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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed 03/02/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over wo 2019/183142 to Cage Bio Inc. (hereinafter, "Cage Bio_142").
Applicants assert Examiner’s statement is conclusory and there is no motivation or expectation of success when modifying the composition. Applicants also assert the newly submitted amendment is not taught by the prior art and thus renders the claims nonobvious.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims are directed to a composition. The prior art teaches the ionic liquid may be present from 0.1-99 wt% of the formulation. Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious. MPEP 2144.05. While Applicants limit their concentration based on the intended use, the motivation to modify the prior art need not be the same.
With regard to expectation of success, again, the prior art specifically teaches the broad range of ionic liquid which may be present in the composition. As such, there is an expectation that the prior art teaches this range based on an expectation that the range will provide a desired impact when administered. As noted above, the impact need not be the same as Applicants, given the instant claims are directed to a composition and not a method.
Finally, with regards to the new limitation, while a showing of unexpected results may overcome an obviousness rejection, the claims must be commiserated in scope with the showing. Here, it is unclear if the range of ionic liquid meets that showing, and if all ionic liquids provide the desired impact. Examiner notes while the specification discusses the disinfectant properties of the composition, there is no evidence which suggests what causes the actual disinfectant ability and whether the newly claimed range occurs. As such, the rejection is maintained as the overlapping range of components still provides motivation to vary the amount based on the broader range, where the various subranges could potentially meet the newly claimed limitation.
Claims 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/183142 to Cage Bio Inc. (hereinafter, "Cage Bio_142") in view of US 2011/0008266 to Tamarkin et al. (hereinafter, "Tamarkin").
Applicants assert Tamarkin is directed to poloxamer-based formable carrier and does not teach a disinfectant with 1-10% by wt ionic liquid. Applicants also assert the prior art does not teach the newly amended disinfection properties.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims do not exclude a poloxamer-based formable compositions. In fact, claims 13-15 require the presence of poloxamers, thus permitted various forms of delivery systems.
The amount of disinfectant and the newly amended disinfection properties are discussed above and rejected for the same reason.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-21 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/011,836 (reference application).
Applicants have not present arguments with regards to this rejection, therefore it is maintained for reasons of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN J PACKARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 2-6pm and Tues-Fri 9:30am-6:30pm + mid-day flex.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at (571) 272-6897. 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.
/BENJAMIN J PACKARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights