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 16-19, 21, 22, 24, and 26-31 remain pending.
Claims 18, 19, 22, and 26-29 remain withdrawn.
Claims 16, 17, 21, 24, 30, and 31 are currently under consideration.
Rejections Maintained and Made Again
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.
Claims 16, 17, 21, 24, 30, and 31 (all claims currently under consideration) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croud et al. (WO 96/03873)(IDS Reference).
Croud teaches a solid composite composition comprising a peroxygen source, and specifically names, sodium perborate monohydrate, and a biocidal precursor, and specifically names potassium iodide (see entire document, for instance, page 20, line 37, page 23, lines 6-13, and claims 1, 7, and 8). The sodium perborate monohydrate is exemplified as being present in an amount of 2.33g and the potassium iodide is exemplified as being present in an amount of 0.37g, at a pH of 8.0, wherein Croud expressly teaches that the biocidal activity of the composition can be optimized by changing the relative amounts of the peroxygen source and the biocidal precursor (see entire document, for instance, page 12, lines 34-37 and page 23, lines 6-13). The composition is taught as being diluted and applied to hard surfaces (see entire document, for instance, page 23, lines 6-13). The composition can have a surfactant and is taught as being useful for treating sanitizing bottles, plastic bottles, pipe cleaning, among other surfaces (see entire document, for instance, page 18, lines 1-8).
Croud, while teaching the instantly claimed components, does not expressly teach the instantly required amounts and ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to optimize the amounts of the components present. One would have been motivated to do so in order to arrive at a composition with optimum biocidal activity, wherein Croud directly directs the artisan to optimize by changing the relative amounts of the peroxygen source and the biocidal precursor (see entire document, for instance, page 12, lines 34-37). There would be a reasonable expectation of success since Croud directly indicates that optimization is within the scope of Croud.
With regard to the limitations directed to the log reduction and the stability over a certain period of time, it is noted that the prior art teaches the same composition as well as the instantly claimed method steps. As such, the composition would necessarily have the same properties, such as log reduction and stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the Remarks filed 02/06/2026 that the prior art teaches a ratio of 6:1 to 2.5:1, which Applicant does not believe is taught by the prior art, and wherein Applicant further does not believe that the instantly claimed render the instantly claimed range obvious. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. First, it is noted that the instant specification ([0033]) indicates that “whether of nor modified by the term “about”, the claims include equivalents to the quantities.” As the claims are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the ranges are considered to the extent that the amount can be considered equivalent. The scope of equivalent is being interpreted as meaning “causing equivalent effect” as such, if a component is added as a surfactant, and if it performs the action of a surfactant, it is deemed equivalent to a surfactant present in a different amount that also performs the action of a surfactant. As such, since the instant claims and the prior art are both directed toward a biocide composition comprising a peroxygen source (oxidizing agent) and biocidal precursor (halogen source), and wherein the product of both compositions results in a biocidal composition. It is noted that Applicant has not established the criticality of the amounts that would provide a more clear scope of the concept of what is equivalent.
Applicant points to the instant specification, and specifically to tables 3 and 4 to assert that the instantly claimed ratio is critical. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. First, it is noted that the data is only provided with oxone and Sodium Bromide, wherein the instant claims are directed to a halogen source that is iodine or a salt thereof and an oxidizing agent that is hydrogen peroxide or a peroxide donor, mono peroxy sulfate salt, percarbonate salt, perborate salt, or combinations thereof. If there are unexpected results shown in Tables 3 and 4, the unexpected results would not be commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed invention.
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 TREVOR M LOVE whose telephone number is (571)270-5259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F typically 6:30-3.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 5712726175. 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.
/TREVOR LOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611