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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 09 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09 September 2025.
Claims 1-5 are under current consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12 June 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been fully considered. Specifically, a copy of the Non-Patent Literature Document was not provided. Moreover, such document was not identified as required per 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5) including publisher, author (if any), relevant pages of the publication, and date.
Drawings
Figures 1-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “of” after the words “comprising” and “comprises” should be deleted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5 are 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.
Regarding claims 2-5, percentages are recited without indication of whether the percentages are based on weight or volume or other basis. Therefore, the resulting claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. For purposes of compact prosecution, in this Office action the percentages are interpreted as being based on weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (WO 2023/091995 A1; published 25 May 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Nichols et al. discloses a solution for deterring intruders comprising an organic acid having a pKa of 6 or less and water (claim 1) wherein a combination of two or more organic acids may be used (paragraph [0029]) wherein organic acids include acetic acid and citric acid (claim 14) wherein the solution further comprises a base (claim 17) wherein a base is ammonia (claim 18) wherein ammonia means its common form of ammonium hydroxide which can be added in sufficient quantity to neutralize sufficient acid to generate a solution pH of about 4.5-6.5 (paragraph [0032]; Example 2) wherein the solution can be used to spray onto an intruder as a deterrent (Examples 1-8), which reads on the claimed de-escalation spray composition comprising of acetic acid, citric acid, ammonium hydroxide buffer, and water.
Further regarding claim 1, although Nichols et al. does not disclose a particular example combining all claimed elements, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Nichols et al. as discussed above and to make a spray solution for deterring intruders (i.e., a de-escalation spray composition) comprising acetic acid, citric acid, ammonium hydroxide (i.e., a buffer that neutralizes acid) and water, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Nichols et al. discloses that the acid provides sufficient irritation to human skin and eyes to impede the advance of an intruder (paragraph [0018]). Although Nichols et al. does not specifically disclose the claimed acetic acid concentration under 20%, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize irritation to human skin and eyes to impede the advance of an intruder by varying the concentration of acetic acid in the solution of Nichols et al. as discussed above through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05(II), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Nichols et al. discloses that the acid provides sufficient irritation to human skin and eyes to impede the advance of an intruder (paragraph [0018]). Although Nichols et al. does not specifically disclose the claimed citric acid concentration under 8%, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize irritation to human skin and eyes to impede the advance of an intruder by varying the concentration of citric acid in the solution of Nichols et al. as discussed above through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05(II), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Nichols et al. discloses that ammonium hydroxide can be added in sufficient quantity to neutralize sufficient acid to generate a solution pH of about 4.5-6.5 (paragraph [0032]; Example 2). Although Nichols et al. does not specifically disclose the claimed ammonium hydroxide buffer concentration under 1%, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize neutralization of sufficient acid to generate a solution pH of about 4.5-6.5 by varying the concentration of ammonium hydroxide (i.e., a buffer that neutralizes acid) in the solution of Nichols et al. as discussed above through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05(II), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Nichols et al. discloses that the solution is about 5-90% water by weight (Example 1), which reads on the claimed composition comprising at least 71% water. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Nichols et al. as discussed above and to make the solution of Nichols et al. as discussed above with about 5-90% water by weight, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such range of about 5-90% water by weight overlaps the claimed range of at least 71% water, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed ranges overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617