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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/2/2025 has been entered.
The office acknowledges Applicants filing of the claim amendments and arguments on 9/2/2025 in response to the office action dated 4/30/2025. Claims 1, 3, 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 10-13, 18-19, 21-22, 24 have been cancelled. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. Arguments, which are directed to withdrawn rejections, are thus rendered moot. The arguments in regards to the reiterated rejections/references from the previous office action are addressed below. In view of Applicant's claim amendments and further consideration the following rejections are newly applied. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 14-17, 20, 23, 25-30 are pending and are examined based on the merits herein.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Lisowsky (CA 2747564): Applicants argue that Lisowsky includes general disclosure of a combined disinfection and decontamination agent comprising at least one vitamin, at least one metal ion, at least one active-surface compound, and at least one further antimicrobial active substance. Webb describes room disinfection using hydrogen peroxide "fogging" methods to eradicate or significantly reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile (C. diff), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) and Acinetobacter baumanni in healthcare settings. None of these references teach or suggest a method of inactivating viruses in beeswax, beehives and/or beehive equipment by contacting a surface of beeswax, beehive and/or beehive equipment with a composition comprising a peroxide. Thus, one of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of success by arriving at the presently claimed method based on the combination of disclosures in the cited references.
In response, Applicants arguments have been fully considered. As stated below Lisowsky teach a disinfectant composition for use in inactivating microorganisms, e.g. viruses comprising at least one metal ion (e.g. iron), active surface agent and antimicrobial active substance, e.g. alcohols, 1-90%, peroxide e.g. hydrogen peroxide, 0.01-10 wt %, surfactants (surface active agents) in an amount of 0.01-35% such as alkyl sulfates. The composition comprises the same agents and in the amounts as in the instant claim. From Titera a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious that apiary and beehive surfaces are infected with pathogens, e.g. viruses. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to use Lisowsky’s composition to disinfect and clean the beehive surfaces with a reasonable expectation of success and maintain a healthy beehive. Webb has been cited to teach that room disinfection can be made using fogging methods. It is noted that such methods can be used to disinfect not just bacteria but other microorganisms, e.g. viruses as well. Thus the claimed method would have been obvious over the prior art teachings for the reasons stated in the rejection below.
Cooksey (US. 2015/0320797; hereafter Cooksey) and Webb:
Applicants’ argue that Cooksey specifically describes a two-component formulation capable of cleaning, disinfecting, decontaminating and eliminating odors from a variety of environmental surfaces and methods for the formulation's preparation and use. As described at paragraph [0014] of Cooksey, one of the drawbacks of using hydrogen peroxide as a disinfectant is the inherent instability of hydrogen peroxide solutions and the length of time required for hydrogen peroxide, alone, to disinfect a surface, and solutions containing only hydrogen peroxide fail to provide any appreciable residual effectiveness following the initial application. The two-component formulation of Cooksey addresses these drawbacks by incorporating a triamine. As described at paragraph [0015] of Cooksey, "upon application, the hydrogen peroxide dissipates within hours, whereas the residual quaternary ammonium and triamine residues can remain active on the surface for several weeks." Thus, the residual quaternary ammonium and triamine residues are essential components of the two-component formulation of Cooksey. There is no teaching or suggestion in any of the cited references to modify the two- component formulation of Cooksey for use in a method of inactivating viruses in beeswax, beehives and/or beehive equipment. Even if, arguendo, one of ordinary skill was to modify the two-component formulation of Cooksey for use in a method of inactivating viruses in beeswax, beehives and/or beehive equipment, which Applicant submits there is no motivation to do, such a modification would render the two-component formulation of Cooksey unsuitable for its intended us, or at the very least change the mode of operation of the two-component formulation of Cooksey in the cleaning of porous and non-porous materials in hospitals, institutions, farms, hotels, cruise ships, homes, schools and other environments.
In response, the disinfectant virucidal composition of Cooksey comprises hydrogen peroxide (3-25%), surfactant(s) (0.1-8 wt%), alkaline carbonate (1-10 wt%) and solvents such as propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol methyl ether (0.1-10 wt%). The composition comprises the same agents and in the amounts as in the instant claim and it does not matter whether it is a two-component formulation or not. Further the instant claims recite a limitation of ‘comprising’ and does not exclude agent agents or components in the composition. Cooksey is not explicit in teaching the use of the composition in the surfaces as in the instant claims. However from Titera a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious that apiary and beehive surfaces are infected with pathogens, e.g. viruses. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to use Cooksey’s composition to disinfect and clean the beehive surfaces with a reasonable expectation of success and maintain a healthy beehive. Webb has been cited to teach that room disinfection can be made using fogging methods. It is noted that such methods can be used to disinfect not just bacteria but other microorganisms, e.g. viruses as well. Thus the claimed method would have been obvious over the prior art teachings for the reasons stated in the rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 14-17, 20, 23, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisowsky (CA 2747564) in view of Titera (IDS: Hygiene in the apiary, 2009) Webb (IDS: Infection Control, https://www.infection controltoday.com/ view/fast-track-zero-environmental-pathogens-using-novel-ionized-hydrogen-peroxide, Feb 11 2011) and further in view of Wilfert (Science, 2016, 351, 6273, pp 594-597).
Lisowsky teach disinfectant agent composition that comprises at least one metal ion (e.g. iron, see p 13, line 7), active surface agent and antimicrobial active substance, e.g. alcohols, 1-90% (p 4, last three lines, p 5, line 3), peroxide or peracids, e.g. hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, 0.01-10 wt% (p 9, lines 3, 13-14), surfactants (surface active agents) in an amount of 0.01-35% such as alkyl sulfates, fatty alcohol ethoxylates (p 13, last para), dimethyl carbonate (0.01-10%), (p 8, para 2, line 8), suitable thickening agents, e.g. starch (p 15, last para) for treating inanimate surfaces (See abstract, p 4, line 6, p 17, lines 4-6). It is noted that the metal ion can act as a peroxide activator. Lisowsky teach that the term disinfection generally denotes the effective, irreversible inactivation, killing or removal of microorganisms such as viruses (See p 1, lines 4-9).
Lisowsky is not explicit in teaching the composition for cleaning beeswax, beehive or beehive equipment or activation of the composition by cold plasma ionizing during a fogging process as claimed.
Titera teachings are to maintaining hygiene in the apiary using disinfectants to have healthy and strong bee colonies. Titera teach hydrogen peroxide 3%, 10% as well 30% solutions and solutions of concentrations equal to 0.5-3% can be used for disinfection in beekeeping (p 14, para 1); alcohols, e.g. isopropyl alcohol and they have the best effect in aqueous solutions of about 70% (p 15, Alcohols); surface active agents, e.g. quaternary ammonium compounds. The pathogens of honeycombs include viruses and bacteria; the reason for the death loss of bees include Varroa disease (see disinfection of honeycombs, page 25, table). Formic acid and oxalic acid are used in beekeeping for their acaricidal effect against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. It is used in concentrations equal to 0.2-0.5% and equipment needs to be treated for at least 10 minutes (see p 13, Organic acids). Further taught is that solution of alkali salt, e.g. sodium carbonate has disinfective properties (See p 12, last para, p 13, line 3).
From Titera a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious that apiary and beehive surfaces are infected with pathogens, e.g. viruses. Hence a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use Lisowsky’s disinfectant composition that comprises hydrogen peroxide (0.01-10 wt%), surfactant(s) (0.01-35%), metal ion, e.g. iron (peroxide activator, 0.01 mM -100 mM), solvent, alcohol (1-90%), dimethyl carbonate, in treating beehive surfaces infected with virus pathogen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so is to disinfect the beehive surface, reduce and/or eliminate the viruses for healthy beekeeping with a reasonable amount of success.
The prior art is not explicit in teaching activation of the composition by cold plasma ionizing during a fogging process as claimed.
Webb teach using novel ionized hydrogen peroxide (HP) technology to disinfect surfaces. The reference teaches HP fogging is highly effective against known healthcare-related pathogens and is used to safely disinfect all environmental surfaces; HP fogging provides high efficacy for the disinfection of healthcare-related pathogens on all exposed environment surfaces (p 2, para 3). HP fogging provides high efficacy for the disinfection of healthcare-related pathogens on all exposed environmental surfaces (p 3, para 4). The reference teaches that ionizing HP accelerates the activation, breaking apart or disassociation of the constituent antimicrobial components of HP and activation creates one or more of highly reactive hydroxyl radicals, oxygen species, nitrogen species, and these agents kill microorganism (p 3, para 2). The ionized hydrogen peroxide process (IHP) uses the novel process of ionization to rapidly disperse the disinfectant. Immediately after the mist droplets exit the nozzle and before they become airborne, the droplets pass through a cold plasma arc created between two high energy electrodes at 17,000 volts (See p 3, para 1, lines 1-8).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Webb to use the ionized hydrogen peroxide technology (IHP) to disinfect beehive and/or its equipment. Administration of the composition comprising hydrogen peroxide, solvent and surfactant to cold plasma ionization fogging process will result in the activation of the hydrogen peroxide composition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the IHP technology with hydrogen peroxide composition by cold plasma fogging process is to disinfect the beehive equipment surface or the beehive with a reasonable expectation of success and to keep them sterile.
The prior art is not explicit in teaching the virus that is being inactivated is deformed wing virus (elected species).
Wilfert teach deformed wing virus and its vector, the mite varroa destructor are a major threat to the world’s honeybees. Transmission has been amplified by human-mediated movement of honeybees or other infected material and fueled by the concurrent emergence of V. destructor mites (Abstract, p 596, co. 3, lines 18-21).
From the teachings of Wilfert it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that deformed wing virus and its vector, the mite varroa destructor are a major threat to the world’s honeybees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to clean the beehive, beehive equipment/beeswax with the disinfectant solution comprising hydrogen peroxide, alcohol and quaternary ammonium surfactant composition, and iron oxide fogged by cold plasma fogging process to keep the apiary and apiculture sterile and also to maintain healthy and strong bee colonies. Thus such process of disinfection with the claimed composition will render the virus including deformed wing virus inactivated in the beehive, beehive equipment/beeswax. It is noted that the instant specification do not define or describe a method of inactivating any viruses. Hence a general definition has been applied to examine the claims: ‘virus inactivation is the process of stopping viruses from contaminating a product by making them non-infectious or removing them completely’. As to the amount of the agents, Lisowsky formulation comprises hydrogen peroxide (0.01-10 wt%), surfactant(s) (0.01-35%), metal ion, e.g. iron (peroxide activator, 0.01 mM -100 mM), solvent, alcohol (1-90%), and dimethyl carbonate (carbonate ester). Claims 1, 5-8, 9, 14, 23, 25-28 are addressed by the combined prior art teachings. As to claim 3, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to apply independently peroxide activator in addition to the application of the said composition to beehive or beeswax surfaces for the hydrogen peroxide to be more effective and efficient in disinfecting the surfaces. As to claims 29-30, Lisowsky teach a wide range of 0.01-10 wt% hydrogen peroxide in the disinfectant formulation. A person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the amount of hydrogen peroxide to 11% or 31% for example to test the ability of the disinfectant solution. It is within the skill of an artisan to routinely adjust the amounts or concentration of the components in a composition and use it concentrated or diluted depending on the need. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 15, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to clean the beehive and/or its equipment at room temperature around 20oC which falls within the temperature as claimed.
As to claim 16, Lisowsky teach thickening agents (aka viscosifying agents) can be added to the composition. As to claim 17, it is within the skill of an artisan to add for e.g. 0.01% of the thickening agent to the composition to improve the texture and stability of the composition. It is routine to adjust the amount of an agent in a composition. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Claim 20 is addressed by the combined prior art teachings and Wilfert’s teaching of deformed wing as a virus that affect honeybees.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 14, 15, 20, 23, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titera (IDS: Hygiene in the apiary, 2009) in view of Pham (IDS: Dissertation, Univ of CA Berkley, 2012), in view of Webb (IDS: Infection Control, https://www.infection controltoday.com/ view/fast-track-zero-environmental-pathogens-using-novel-ionized-hydrogen-peroxide, Feb 11 2011) in view of Smirnov (RU 2038774) and further in view of Wilfert (Science, 2016, 351, 6273, pp 594-597).
Titera teachings as discussed above.
The prior art is not explicit in teaching said composition comprises peroxide activator and the composition is activated by subjecting the composition to cold plasma ionizing during a fogging process before the composition contacts the beeswax, beehive and/or beehive equipment surface.
Pham teach the hydrogen peroxide is decomposed to hydroxyl radicals with iron minerals (p 1, lines 1-2, p 2, para 1). Iron oxides can be used in the process to catalyze the conversion of H2O2 to OH radical (p 2, para 2, lines 1-2) and the process can be in situ or ex situ (p 2, para 2). Pham teach the activation of hydrogen peroxide by iron-containing solids (p 6, section 1.4). It is taught that hydroxyl radical is capable of oxidizing a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants (p 8, section 1.4.2). In Table 1-2, it is taught that 0.5-12 g/L can be added to 500 mg/L of hydrogen peroxide.
From Pham a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a peroxide activator to a composition that comprises hydrogen peroxide. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so is to activate the hydrogen peroxide to produce hydroxy radicals which can act as an oxidizing agent to remove the contaminants in beeswax, beehive or its equipment.
The above prior art do not teach activation of the composition by cold plasma ionizing during a fogging process as claimed.
Webb teachings discussed as above.
From Webb, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to disinfect surfaces using the IHP technology with hydrogen peroxide composition including beehive, beehive equipment etc. Administration of the composition comprising hydrogen peroxide, solvent and surfactant formulated from the teachings of the prior art by cold plasma ionization fogging process will result in activation of the composition, for e.g. HP as taught by Webb. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the IHP technology with hydrogen peroxide composition by cold plasma fogging process is to disinfect the beehive equipment surface or the beehive with a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art is not explicit in teaching the claimed hydrogen peroxide amount as 3.5-70%.
Smirnov teach composition comprising hydrogen peroxide (20-30%), acetic acid and water for use in beekeeping and disinfection of beekeeping facilities (See abstract, claims).
A person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use concentrated hydrogen peroxide, e.g. 20-30% for disinfection of beekeeping facilities.
The prior art is not explicit in teaching the virus that is being inactivated is the elected deformed wing virus.
Wilfert teach deformed wing virus and its vector, the mite varroa destructor are a major threat to the world’s honeybees. Transmission has been amplified by human-mediated movement of honeybees or other infected material and fueled by the concurrent emergence of V. destructor mites (Abstract, p 596, co. 3, lines 18-21).
From the teachings of Wilfert it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that deformed wing virus and its vector, the mite varroa destructor are a major threat to the world’s honeybees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to clean the beehive, beehive equipment/beeswax with the disinfectant solution comprising hydrogen peroxide (20-30% from Smirnov), alcohol and quaternary ammonium surfactant composition, and iron oxide fogged by cold plasma fogging process to keep the apiary and apiculture sterile and also to maintain healthy and strong bee colonies. Thus such process of disinfection with the claimed composition will render the virus including deformed wing virus inactivated in the beehive, beehive equipment/beeswax. It is noted that the instant specification do not define or describe a method of inactivating any viruses. Hence a general definition has been applied to examine the claims: ‘virus inactivation is the process of stopping viruses from contaminating a product by making them non-infectious or removing them completely’. It is noted that Titera teach 3% hydrogen peroxide to clean beehive/facilities and it is within the skill of an artisan to adjust the amounts of a composition and arrive at 3.5% hydrogen peroxide in the disinfectant composition and it is routine. Hence claims 1, 23, 28-29 are addressed by the combined prior art teachings. As to claim 3, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to apply independently peroxide activator in addition to the application of the said composition to beehive or beeswax surfaces for the hydrogen peroxide to be more effective and efficient in disinfecting the surfaces.
As to claims 25-27 and 30, Smirnov teach composition comprising 20-30% hydrogen peroxide and Titera teach 3% hydrogen peroxide to clean beehive/facilities. That teaches the concentration of hydrogen peroxide can be adjusted to disinfect the apiary. It is within the skill of an artisan to routinely adjust the amounts or concentration of the components in a composition and use it concentrated or diluted depending on the need. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 5, if 0.5 g per liter is added, it can be 0.05% of the total weight of one liter composition. It is within the skill of an artisan to adjust the amounts of the activator based on the amount of peroxide needs to be activated in the composition.
Claims 6-7 are addressed by Smirnov teaching of water and Titera’s teaching of alcohol. As to claim 9, aqueous solutions comprising of about 70% alcohol is taught by Titera.
As to the amounts in the claim 14, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to use 7.5-10 parts by weight of surfactant in the beehive from the prior art teachings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so is in expectation of reasonable amount of success in formulating and using the composition comprising the surface active agent in cleaning the beehive. It is within the skill of an artisan to routinely adjust the amounts of the agents in the composition. As to claim 15, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to clean the beehive and/or its equipment at room temperature around 20oC which falls within the temperature as claimed. Claim 20 is addressed by the combined prior art teachings and Wilfert’s teaching of deformed wing as a virus that affect honeybees.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titera (IDS: Hygiene in the apiary, 2009) in view of Pham (IDS: Dissertation, Univ of CA Berkley, 2012), in view of Webb (IDS: Infection Control, https://www.infection controltoday.com/ view/fast-track-zero-environmental-pathogens-using-novel-ionized-hydrogen-peroxide, Feb 11 2011) in view of Smirnov (RU 2038774)and further in view of Wilfert (Science, 2016, 351, 6273, pp 594-597) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lisowsky (CA 2747564).
The above prior art teachings as applied to claim 1. The rejections are incorporated herein.
The prior art do not teach the solvent as carbonate ester in the composition.
Lisowsky teachings discussed as above.
From the teachings of Lisowsky a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a solvent such as dimethylcarbonate (a carbonate ester) and surfactants such as alkylsulfates in the Titera composition with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add such components in formulating the disinfecting composition and use it for cleaning inanimate surfaces such as beehives with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined prior art teachings.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titera (IDS: Hygiene in the apiary, 2009) in view of Pham (IDS: Dissertation, Univ of CA Berkley, 2012), in view of Webb (IDS: Infection Control, https://www.infection controltoday.com/ view/fast-track-zero-environmental-pathogens-using-novel-ionized-hydrogen-peroxide, Feb 11 2011) in view of Smirnov (RU 2038774)and further in view of Wilfert (Science, 2016, 351, 6273, pp 594-597) as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 9, 14, 15, 20, 23, 25-30 above and further in view of Requieme et al. (IDS: EP 1789524).
The above prior art teachings as applied to claim 1. The rejections are incorporated herein.
The references do not teach thickeners (viscosifying agents) in the composition.
Requieme et al. teach stabilization of hydrogen peroxide containing compositions, suitable for use as disinfectants in industrial applications [0001]. The composition comprising hydrogen peroxide (2-15%) [0023], comprises thickening agents (0.05-5 wt%) (see claim 1) stabilizers, surfactants [0007[. The reference teaches that polymeric thickening agents are added to cleaning compositions to increase their residence time on non-horizontal surfaces [0003].
From the teachings of Requieme a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to add a thickener (e.g. 0.05%) to the composition comprising hydrogen peroxide. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so is to increase the residence time of the disinfectant composition hydrogen peroxide in beehive and/or beehive equipment. Claims 16-17 are addressed by the combined prior art teachings.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 14, 15, 20, 23, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Cooksey (US 20150320797 A1) in view of Titera (IDS: Hygiene in the apiary, 2009) Webb (IDS: Infection Control, https://www.infection controltoday.com/ view/fast-track-zero-environmental-pathogens-using-novel-ionized-hydrogen-peroxide, Feb 11 2011) and further in view of Wilfert (Science, 2016, 351, 6273, pp 594-597).
Cooksey teach a cleaning and disinfecting virucidal formulation for cleaning in farms, institutions, and other environments comprising an aqueous alkaline solution containing a surfactant and an aqueous stabilized hydrogen peroxide solution which can be applied to clean surfaces. The formulation obtained by mixing the two components can be applied to environmental surfaces by spray, fog, mop etc. (abstract, [0005]). It is taught that the composition comprises an aqueous solution containing 0.01 to 5 wt. % of N, N-bis(3-aminopropyl)dodecylamine, 0.01 to 8 wt. % of at least one quaternary ammonium compound, 0.1 to 8 wt.% of a non-ionic surfactant, 1 to 10 wt. % an alkaline base, 3 to 25 wt. % hydrogen peroxide and water ([0006], claims 1, 10-11). The disinfectant composition further includes 0.1 to 10 wt. % dipropylene glycol methyl ether, and 0.1 to 10 wt. % propylene glycol (claim 6). The composition can include potassium carbonate or other alkaline carbonate salts (See [0019], [0026], claims 2, 14). In summary the disinfectant composition of Cooksey comprises hydrogen peroxide (3-25%), surfactant(s) (0.1-8 wt%), alkaline carbonate (1-10 wt%) and solvents such as propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol methyl ether (0.1-10 wt%).
The prior art is not explicit in teaching the composition for inactivating viruses in beeswax, beehive and/or beehive equipment surface.
Titera teachings as discussed above.
From Titera a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious that apiary and beehive surfaces are infected with pathogens, e.g. viruses. Hence a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use Cooksey’s composition that comprises hydrogen peroxide (3-25%), surfactant(s) (0.1-8 wt%), alkaline carbonate (1-10 wt%) and solvents such as propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol methyl ether (0.1-10 wt%) in treating beehive surfaces infected with virus pathogen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so is to disinfect the beehive surface, reduce and/or eliminate the viruses for healthy beekeeping with a reasonable amount of success.
The prior art is not explicit in teaching activation of the composition by cold plasma ionizing during a fogging process as claimed.
Webb teachings discussed as above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Webb to use the ionized hydrogen peroxide technology (IHP) to disinfect beehive and/or its equipment. Administration of the composition comprising hydrogen peroxide, solvent and surfactant to cold plasma ionization fogging process will result in the activation of the hydrogen peroxide composition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the IHP technology with hydrogen peroxide composition by cold plasma fogging process is to disinfect the beehive equipment surface or the beehive with a reasonable expectation of success and to keep them sterile.
The prior art is not explicit in teaching the virus that is being inactivated is deformed wing virus (elected species).
Wilfert teachings as above.
From the teachings of Wilfert it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that deformed wing virus and its vector, the mite varroa destructor are a major threat to the world’s honeybees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to clean the beehive, beehive equipment/beeswax with the disinfectant solution comprising hydrogen peroxide, its activator, solvent and surfactant composition fogged by cold plasma fogging process to keep the apiary and apiculture sterile and also to maintain healthy and strong bee colonies. Thus such process of disinfection with the claimed composition will render the virus including deformed wing virus inactivated in the beehive, beehive equipment/ beeswax. It is noted that the instant specification do not define or describe a method of inactivating any viruses. Hence a general definition has been applied to examine the claims: ‘virus inactivation is the process of stopping viruses from contaminating a product by making them non-infectious or removing them completely’. As to the amount of, hydrogen peroxide, surfactant, peroxide activator and solvent, Cooksey’s formulation comprises hydrogen peroxide (3-25%), surfactant(s) (0.1-8 wt%), alkaline carbonate (1-10 wt%) (peroxide activator) and solvents such as propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol methyl ether (0.1-10 wt%). A person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use alkaline carbonate salt, e.g. potassium carbonate in the method. Thus claims 1, 5-7, 9, 14, 23, 25-29 are addressed by the combined prior art teachings. As to claim 3, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to apply independently peroxide activator in addition to the application of the said composition to beehive or beeswax surfaces for the hydrogen peroxide to be more effective and efficient in disinfecting the surfaces. As to claim 30, Cooksey teach a wide range of 3-25% hydrogen peroxide. Hence a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the amount of hydrogen peroxide to 31% for example to test the ability of the disinfectant solution. It is within the skill of an artisan to routinely adjust the amounts or concentration of the components in a composition and use it concentrated or diluted depending on the need. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 15, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to clean the beehive and/or its equipment at room temperature around 20oC which falls within the temperature as claimed. Claim 20 is addressed by the combined prior art teachings and Wilfert’s teaching of deformed wing as a virus that affect honeybees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 3 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
403
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the composition comprises the peroxide activator (step iii) and it can be added right before the application. However if added separately it is not part of the composition. It is not clear how peroxide activator is applied separately in a different step than the at least one peroxide when peroxide activator is in the composition of claim 1.
It is suggested that the step be added separately in the method as an additional step, for example: (v) optionally at least one of the above peroxide activator is independently applied to the surface of the beeswax, beehive and/or beehive equipment.
Claim 3 is directed to:
PNG
media_image2.png
101
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 1, the composition comprises peroxide, surfactant, solvent, at least one peroxide activator and is applied to beeswax, beehive/equipment. It is not clear how peroxide activator is applied separately in a different step than the at least one peroxide when peroxide activator is in the composition of claim 1. Further it is not clear which at least one peroxide is applied separately in a different step than the at least one peroxide. Clarification is required.
Note: For the sake of compact prosecution, in regards to the above limitations, claims 1, 3 have been examined based on the interpretation that after application of the composition, in a separate step in the process that additionally a peroxide activator is applied to the claimed surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAMAHESWARI RAMACHANDRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F- 8:30-5:00 PM (PST).
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 5712705239. 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.
/Umamaheswari Ramachandran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627