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
The office acknowledges Applicants filing of the claim amendments, arguments and terminal disclaimers filed on 2/20/2026 in response to the office action dated 8/20/2025. Claims 10 -15, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 have been amended. Claims 17, 18, 20, 36, and 38 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9 have been previously cancelled. The ODP rejections are withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimers filed and approved by the office. Rejections not reiterated from previous office action(s) are hereby withdrawn. Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new rejections necessitated by the amendments. The action is made final. Claims 10-16, 19, 21-35, 37 are pending and are examined based on the merits herein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-16, 19, 21-23, 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beerse et al. (US 6190675) in view of Scheuing (US 20100056416).
Beerse et al. teach a sanitizing and disinfecting solution concentrate composition:
a. about 3% to about 98.899% water (see Abstract);
b. about 0.1% to about 12% of a proton donating agent which can be an organic acid such as citric acid (see Abstract and column 15);
c. about 1% to about 80% of one or more naturally-derived sulfated fatty acid surfactants such as a lauryl sulfate (see Abstract and column 13);
d. about 0.1% to about 10% of one or more monocarboxylic fatty acids such as palmitic acid and lauric acid (see column 20); and
e. about 0.001% to about 5% of one or more alcohols and essential oils (see columns 4-7).
Beerse et al. teach that the pH of their compositions should be adjusted and buffered to have a pH of from about 3.0 to about 6.0, preferably from about 3.0 to about 5.0 and more preferably from about 3.5 to about 4.5 which encompasses the claimed pH range (See col. 14, lines 65-68, col. 15, lines 1-8). Beerse teach calcium carbonate (adjuvant) [0073] and sodium carbonate in the composition (Table 4).The rinse-off antimicrobial cleansing composition has a Gram Positive Residual Effectiveness Index of greater than about 1.8, and wherein the rinse-off antimicrobial cleansing composition has a Mildness Index of greater than 0.3 (See Abstract). The reference teaches anionic surfactants, e.g. salts of lauryl sulfate. Specific examples of alkyl sulfates which may be used in the cleanser compositions are sodium, ammonium, potassium, magnesium, or TEA salts of lauryl or myristyl sulfate (See col. 9, lines 1-5).
Beerse et al. do not explicitly teach the alcohol as ethanol or isopropanol in the composition(s).
Scheuing, in the field of natural cleaners, teaches the use of organic solvents such as ethanol or isopropanol in amounts of less than 10% (see paragraph [0068]). Scheuing also teaches the inclusion of monocarboxylic fatty acids such as capric acid and lauric acid in their compositions (see paragraph [0055]); water present at a level of less than 90% [0069] (also see claim 1). The reference teaches that the pH of the cleaning solution is measured at 10% dilution [0075].
From Scheuing a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio would have found it obvious to add ethanol solvent for example in Beerse disinfectant composition. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to add the organic solvent in the disinfectant (cleaning) solution of Beerse with a reasonable expectation of success and use the composition to clean/disinfect surfaces.
Because the ranges of ingredients disclosed in Beerse et al. and Scheuing encompass the claimed ranges of ingredients, it would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art at the time of filing to achieve the claimed sanitizing and disinfecting concentrate compositions via routine experimentation and optimization based on the overall teachings of Beerse et al. and Scheuing.
Beerse et al. suggest a method of cleaning, sanitizing, or disinfecting a food or non-food contact surface comprising diluting a concentrate composition with water such as tap water to form a diluted solution (see columns 3 and 15 and Examples). The composition formulated from the prior art teachings do not contain any halogenated compound. As to the limitation of ‘the buffering agent concentration is such that the pH of the diluted sanitizing and disinfecting solution remains under 5.0, Beerse explicitly teach that the pH of their compositions should be adjusted and buffered to have a pH of from about 3.0 to about 6.0, preferably from about 3.0 to about 5.0. It is within the skill of an artisan to adjust the amounts of the buffering agent and arrive at a pH for example, 3-5, which falls within the claimed range. Thus claims 10-16, 19, 21-23, 25-26, 28-33 are addressed by the prior art teachings. It is within the skill of an artisan to add salts of the surfactant in the composition as salts can improve solubility, stability and efficiency of the composition. As to claims 27 and 33, Scheuing teach 10% dilution of the cleaning solution. Hence a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to dilute the composition formulated from the prior art for e.g. at 10% to test the pH and also to use cleaning surfaces and this falls within the claimed range. Based on the teachings of Beerse et al., it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a diluted solution at a pH of for example, 1.0 -5.0 via routine experimentation and optimization, for the purpose of improving the application and effectiveness of the composition in cleaning, sanitizing, or disinfecting a food or non-food contact surface.
Note: The limitation ‘remains under 5.0’ has been interpreted that the pH is between 0-5.
Claims 24, 34-35, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beerse et al. (US 6190675) in view of Scheuing (US 20100056416) as applied to claims 10-16, 19, 21-23, 25-33 and further in view of Urban et al. (IDS: EP1252283B1).
Beerse and Scheuing teachings discussed as above. The above rejection is incorporated herein.
Beerse and Scheuing are not explicit in teaching the amount of citric acid as in claims 24, 34.
Urban teachings are to improved hard surface cleaning compositions having an acidic pH comprising acids e.g. citric acid acetic acid, capric acid, caproic acid, the hydrophilic solvents include isopropanol, ethanol, anionic surfactant, pH adjusting agents, e.g. citric acid, carbonates [0043], and pH buffers (See abstract, [0018], claims 1-3, 4, 8, 10, 14). It is taught that citric acid can be added in an amount of at least 25 wt% (See claim 3). Urban further teach that it has been observed that citric acid provides good disinfecting action in the compositions of the invention but in certain formulations may be insufficiently acidic in order to effectively remove certain stains. The addition of at least one further acid provides additional cleaning effect which was not observed in certain formulations with citric acid alone [0017]. Further taught is that sodium lauryl sulfate can be added to the composition, e.g. Stepanol (see Tables 1-2).
From the teachings of Urban a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to add citric acid in an amount of 25% to the disinfectant concentrate composition of Beerse. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to add citric acid in the amounts as claimed with a reasonable amount of success and to provide additional cleaning effects. Thus claim 24 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art. As to the limitation of ‘the buffering agent concentration is such that the pH of the diluted sanitizing and disinfecting solution remains under 5.0, Beerse explicitly teach that the pH of their compositions should be adjusted and buffered to have a pH of from about 3.0 to about 6.0, preferably from about 3.0 to about 5.0. It is within the skill of an artisan to adjust the amounts of the buffering agent and arrive at a pH for example, 3-5, which falls within the claimed range. Beerse is explicit in teaching salts of lauryl sulfate, e.g. sodium (anionic surfactant) that can be added to the composition. Further, it is within the skill of an artisan to add salts of the surfactant in the composition as salts can improve solubility, stability and efficiency of the composition. Thus claim 34 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art. As to claim 35, lauryl sulfate and its sodium salt in the composition is taught by the prior art. As to claim 37, as stated above, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to add ethanol, isopropanol in the disinfectant/ cleaning composition comprising acids and surfactant with a reasonable amount of success and arrive at the claimed composition for cleaning purposes.
Conclusion
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 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