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 are pending.
Claim 16 is amended.
Claims 18, 19, 22, and 26-29 remain withdrawn.
Claim 23 and 25 are newly cancelled.
Claims 16, 17, 21, 24, 30, and 31 are currently under consideration.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 16, 17, 21, 23-25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2008/0230094) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 16 as well as the cancellation of claims 23 and 25.
New Grounds of Rejection – Necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments
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 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's arguments filed 10/29/2025 are directed to a ground of rejection that has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendments. The arguments are not found persuasive against the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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