DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to claims 1, 5 and 15 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 3-4, 9-10, 15 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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 6, 9, 12 and 17 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.
Claim 6 recites “The composition according to claim 1, wherein a carbonate salt is selected from the group consisting of…”. Claim 1 does not recite a carbonate salt. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 6 is requiring that the composition of claim 1 to comprise a carbonate salt which is selected from the group listed. It is recommended that either the claim depend from claim 2 which recites a carbonate salt, or that the claim recite that the at least one basic ingredient comprises a carbonate salt selected from the group listed.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding instant claim 12, it is unclear how the height of the foam can be a combination of different values. The height of a foam should be recited as a single value or within a range of values, but it is unclear how the foam height can be more than one value at a time, such as both 1 cm and 7.5 cm.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “the bacterial organisms are at least four selected from the group consisting of Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Staphylococcus aureus; Enterococcus hirae; Escherichia coli; Salmonella typhimurium; Lactobacillus brevis; Enterobacter cloacae; and Saccharomyces cerevisiae”, and the claim also recites “wherein the bacterial organisms are Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Staphylococcus aureus; Enterococcus hirae; and Escherichia coli” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that height of the foam may be varied and inconsistent with respect to all of the peaks in the foam that may be formed. Therefore, it is possible that the height of the foam can be a combination of values, as claimed.
The examiner respectfully argues that the instant specification states that the foam stability for the compositions of the present invention is done by measuring the foam height from the level of the standing water in the beaker containing about 1 liter of water to the top of foam level at 5 mins dissolution time, 10 mins dissolution time and so on till the tablet is fully dissolved at 20 degree C (19°C - 21°C - water temp) and continue to be measured up to about 90 minutes (pg. 28, ln. 13-17; pg. 35, ln. 14-22; Table 6). Therefore, it is clear from the instant specification that the foam height is measured from the level of standing water to the top of foam level. This measurement would result in a single value, and would not result in a combination of heights.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burt et al. (US 2004/0116317 A1).
Regarding instant claims 1-2, Burt et al. disclose an effervescent cleaning tablet having a homogenous composition consisting of: at least 50% wt. of an effervescent agent comprising at least one acidic component, and at least one basic component; at least one compound having germicidal properties selected from the group consisting of cationic surfactant, biguanides, and phenolics; optionally, one or more components selected from the group consisting of non-ionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, lubricants, colorants, perfumes, deodorizers, preservatives, dyes, disintegrants, binders, absorbents, and fibers (Claims 1-14). Burt et al. disclose compositions comprising a basic ingredient (i.e., sodium carbonate and/or sodium bicarbonate), an acidic component (i.e., citric acid), a germicidal agent (i.e., alkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, alkyl dimethyl(ethylbenzyl)ammonium chloride, N-alkyl-N,N-dimethyl-N-benzyl ammonium chloride, and polyhexamethylenebiguanide), and a non-ionic surfactant (i.e., alkyl polyglycoside, ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block copolymer, ethoxylated fatty alcohol), wherein the compositions contain less than 0.5% of any anionic surfactant and any bleaching agent (Examples 12, 14-21, 25-33, 35, 37-70, 72-78, 80-87, 90-93, 95-96, 98-110, 112, 115-116, 118-125, 127-167, 169-172, 175-186, 188-192, 194-211 and 213-219).
Regarding instant claim 4, Burt et al. disclose compositions comprising between 3-11 wt.% germicidal agent, and between 0.25-10 wt.% non-ionic surfactant (Examples 14-21, 25-32, 39, 90-93, 95-96, 98-110, 112, 115-116, 118-125, 127-138, 140, 142-167, 169-172, 175-186, 188-192, 194-205 and 213).
Regarding instant claim 5, Burt et al. disclose compositions comprising alkyl dimethyl(ethylbenzyl)ammonium chloride (BTC 2125M-P40) or N-alkyl-N,N-dimethyl-N-benzyl ammonium chloride (Barquat MS-100, BTC 824 P-100, or BTC 8358) (Examples 12, 14-21, 25-33, 35, 37-70, 72-78, 80-87, 90-93, 95-96, 98-110, 112, 115-116, 118-125, 127-167, 169-172, 175-186, 188-192, 194-211 and 213-219).
Regarding instant claim 6, Burt et al. disclose compositions comprising sodium bicarbonate and/or sodium carbonate (Examples 12, 14-21, 25-33, 35, 37-70, 72-78, 80-87, 90-93, 95-96, 98-110, 112, 115-116, 118-125, 127-167, 169-172, 175-186, 188-192, 194-211 and 213-219).
Regarding instant claim 7, Burt et al. disclose compositions comprising C16-18 fatty alcohol ethoxylate (Lutensol AT25, Lutensol AT50 or Lutensol AT80) (Examples 215-219).
Regarding instant claim 8, Burt et al. disclose compositions comprising binders (i.e., microcrystalline cellulose, amorphous cellulose, PEG, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, crosslinked polyacrylic acid, etc.), fillers (i.e., lactose or phosphates), fragrances, dyes (Blue speckles), preservatives, lubricants, etc. (Examples, Claims).
Regarding instant claim 9, Burt et al. disclose that the compositions are in the form of a tablet ([0082]; Claims 1-14).
Regarding instant claim 10, Burt et al. disclose a composition comprising a weight ratio of sodium bicarbonate to citric acid of 1:1, and a weight ratio of germicidal agent to nonionic surfactant of 1.8:2 (Example 73); and examples wherein the weight ratio of citric acid + trisodium citrate to sodium bicarbonate is 1.1:1 to 1.5:1 (Example 83-84 and 87).
Regarding instant claims 11-14, Burt et al. disclose that when exposed to water, the compositions react to form a gas (for example, carbon dioxide) ([0010]). Burt et al. disclose compositions that comprise the same ingredients as instantly claimed within the same concentrations and weight ratios. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the compositions according to Burt et al. will necessarily form a foam under the same conditions as the instantly claimed compositions.
Regarding instant claim 14, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding instant claims 15-18, Burt et al. disclose cleaning and/or disinfecting a hard surface (for example, counter tops, floors, walls, sinks, toilets, bathtubs, and the like) ([0004]). Burt et al. disclose evaluating cleaning efficacy of compositions on masonite wallboard (ASTM D4488A2) and vinyl tile samples (ASTM D-4488-89 Annex A5) ([0085], [0088]). Burt et al. disclose an antimicrobial test wherein the composition passed if the cfu are reduced from 107 cfu to 102 cfu, a 105 cfu reduction ([0084]). Burt et al. tested Enterococcus hirae, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus hirae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Table 3).
Burt et al. disclose compositions that comprise the same ingredients as instantly claimed within the same concentrations and weight ratios. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the compositions according to Burt et al. will necessarily achieve a bacterial load reduction by at least 103 cfu reduction in 5 minutes for at least four bacterial organisms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Burt teaches the use of Glucopon 50G as the non-ionic surfactant. However, Glucopon 50G contains approximately 5% of an anionic surfactant, as is evidenced by its manufacturer's datasheet for this product.
The examiner respectfully argues that Burt et al. disclose that those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the use of anionic surfactants may depend upon the type of germicidal agent used in the compressed form. For example, if cationic surfactants are used, typical anionic surfactants should not be used ([0063]). If cationic surfactants are not used as the germicidal agent in the compressed form, then typical anionic surfactants known to those skilled in the art, such as those described in, for example, McCutcheon's Detergents and Emulsifiers, North American Edition, 1998; Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th Ed., Vol. 23, pp. 478-541, can be used with the compressed form of the present invention ([0075]).
Therefore, Burt et al. disclose that compositions comprising a cationic surfactant with germicidal properties should not be combined with anionic surfactants. Burt et al. further disclose examples comprising citric acid as the acidic ingredient, sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate as the basic ingredient, N-alkyl-N,N-dimethyl-N-benzylammonium chloride (Barquat MS-100) as the germicidal agent, and C14 fatty alcohol ethoxylate (Empilan KM50-PW) or C16-C18 fatty alcohol ethoxylate (Lutensol AT 25, Lutensol AT 50 or Lutensol AT 80) as the nonionic surfactant (Tables 1-2, Ex. 140, 142, 155-157, 160, 163-165, 167, 171, 176-177, 180, 185-186, 190-191, 215-219). Therefore, Burt et al. disclose effervescing compositions comprising at least one acidic ingredient, at least one basic ingredient, a germicidal agent, and a non-ionic surfactant, wherein the composition is free of any anionic surfactant.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt et al. (US 2004/0116317 A1), as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-18 above.
The teachings of Burt et al. are discussed above.
Regarding instant claim 3, Burt et al. teach that the acidic component is present in the effervescent agent in an amount ranging from about 20% to about 80%, preferably from about 20% to about 60% and more preferably between about 20% to about 40%; and the basic component is present in the effervescent agent in an amount between about 10% to about 80%. Preferably, the basic component ranges in an amount from about 20% to about 70% and more preferably between about 25% and about 70% ([0012], [0014]). The acidic and basic components are included in amounts to achieve rapid, complete Solubility of the tablet. Consequently, the molar ratio of acid component to basic component should be approximately within a range of from about 1.0:2.0 to about 1.0:4.0 ([0015]).
A molar ratio of 1:2 for citric acid and sodium bicarbonate is equivalent to a weight ratio of 1.14:1 (192.12 g/mol citric acid and 84.007 g/mol sodium bicarbonate; 192.12/(84.007 x 2) = 1.14).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare an effervescent cleaning tablet according to Burt et al. comprising an acidic component in an amount of 50-55 wt.%, a basic component in an amount of 25-40 wt.%, and a weight ratio of basic component to acidic component of 1.0:1.3 to 1:2. Such would have been obvious because Burt et al. teach that the acidic component can be present from about 20% to about 80%, preferably from about 20% to about 60% and more preferably between about 20% to about 40%; and the basic component present in an amount between about 10% to about 80%, preferably, from about 20% to about 70% and more preferably between about 25% and about 70%.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are the same as above. Therefore, the examiner’s response is repeated herein.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616