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 1-10 and the antimicrobial compound ortho-phthalaldehyde as in claims 3 and 14 as the specific antimicrobial [agent] in the reply filed on 2/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 11-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected methods and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/2026.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 5-10 are under current examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/14/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/150109A1 (Dousset et al.; “Dousset”; cited by Applicant in IDS dated 6/14/2023).
The instant claims are drawn to an antimicrobial composition comprising an antimicrobial agent; a supramolecular host chemical or a supramolecular guest chemical configured to engage in host-guest chemistry with the antimicrobial agent; and a solvent, as further specified in the claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Dousset teaches an antimicrobial composition comprising an antimicrobial agent which may be silver or copper metal either of which is antimicrobial (see Dousset claims 1, 26, and 28 for instance); a supramolecular host chemical or a supramolecular guest chemical by its teaching of cyclodextrin or modified cyclodextrin (see Dousset claims 4, and 12-14 for instance) dissolved in water. See [0211], [0221]. Dousset’s bound groups may be in the form of nanoparticles (see [0228]).
Because Dousset does not specify an embodiment including the aforementioned components in particular, this rejection is made using obviousness rationale. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine an antimicrobial agent and a host chemical cyclodextrin with said antimicrobial agent and a solvent, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so based on Dousset’s explicit teaching that cyclodextrin may be a supramolecular host molecule (see [0177] and [0202] in particular) and that the supramolecular host molecule may be functionalized with a metallic particle such as copper or copper nanoparticles which are antimicrobial metals (see [0218]).
Further regarding claim 5, Dousset specifies that the solutions may be present in a kit with for instance an acid and/or base solution, which would at least be considered adjuvants or stabilizers; Dousset also teaches dye components which would be considered colorants as claimed (see [0237] and [0229]).
As to claim 8, Dousset teaches a nanostructure (see [0155]) and further specifies an anionic charged form for instance (see [0077]).
As to claim 9, aqueous solvent is disclosed for a cyclodextrin embodiment (see [0199]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/150109A1 (Dousset et al.; “Dousset”; cited by Applicant in IDS dated 6/14/2023) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of US 2013/0295315A1 (Durdag et al.; “Durdag”).
The teachings of Dousset have been delineated above. Dousset does not specify the instantly elected ortho-phthalaldehyde as specified in claim 3. Durdag cures this deficiency.
Durdag teaches antimicrobial products including those using cyclodextrin materials as carriers (see [0020]) for the antimicrobial active agents. Durdag teaches copper and ortho-phthalaldehyde alike as non-silver based antimicrobial and antifungal agents (see [0024]).
Both Dousset and Durdag pertain to antimicrobial functionalized products. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute Durdag’s ortho-phthalaldehyde for Dousset’s copper, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to achieve antimicrobial functional efficacy based on Durdag’s teaching of the state of the art showing copper and ortho-phthalaldehyde to be equivalent antimicrobial agents. Moreover, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/150109A1 (Dousset et al.; “Dousset”; cited by Applicant in IDS dated 6/14/2023) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of ES2588261B1 (“Lopez”, translation enclosed).
The teachings of Dousset have been delineated above. Dousset does not specify the quantitative amounts of antimicrobial agent as in claim 6, supramolecular host or guest chemical as in claim 7, or water as in claim 10.
Lopez cures this deficiency. Lopez teaches packaging materials having an antimicrobial coating and including cyclodextrin complexes (see abstract, in particular). Lopez’s cyclodextrins function as host molecules (see first full paragraph of page 4/13 of translation). Lopez specifies the formulations to include a polymeric compound which may be cyclodextrin in a weight concentration of 5 to 30%, antimicrobial agent in a weight concentration of 5 to 30%, and water in a concentration of 40 to 90% (see top half of page 7/13 of translation.
Dousset and Lopez are both directed to antimicrobial materials including those used for functional coatings. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform routine optimization procedures as to the amounts (concentrations by weight percentage) of cyclodextrin, antimicrobial agent, and water, each of these components in a final product of Dousset, as is customary in the art. One would have been motivated to do so in Dousset’s products to achieve optimal stability and functional efficacy based on the starting point ranges as taught by Lopez in order to provide both desired dilution effects as well as desired formulation stability from the cyclodextrin and antimicrobial efficacy from the antimicrobial agent.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617