DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 06, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Restriction
The claims originally presented and acted upon by the Office on their merits determine the invention elected by an applicant in the application, and in any request for continued examination (RCE) filed for the application. See MPEP 818.02 (a).
Claims 12-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 1-11 are drawn to a liquid agent classified as A01N 59/16.
Claims 12-21 are drawn to methods for inactivating a virus classified as A61P 1/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. For example, the product as claimed can be used to treat water.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
• The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
• The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
• The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, Group I (Claims 1-11) has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (Maintained)
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 1-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being as being anticipated by Rasool et al. (US 2018/0304208 A1).
Claim 1 is anticipated because Rasool discloses the antimicrobial agent, Ti3C2Tx, where T represents the terminal functional group O, OH and/or F, that has at least one two-dimensional layer. Ti3C2Tx is in aqueous suspension and coated on a substrate [0044]. The particle nanosheets of the two-dimensional metal carbide have a thickness of 1 nm [claim 17].
Claim 2 is anticipated because Rasool discloses Ti3C2 [0044].
Claim 3 is anticipated because Rasool discloses the particle nanosheets of the two-dimensional metal carbide have a thickness of 1 nm [claim 17]. If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 4 is anticipated because Rasool discloses the liquid medium is water [0044].
Claim 9 is anticipated because the particles do not include chlorine or bromine (full document).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rasool describes that the antimicrobial agent has an antibacterial activity/effect on bacteria, but not mention any virus, and the fact that a substance has antibacterial properties does not imply that is can inactivate a virus as it is improper to assume that a mechanism that is effective against bacteria would directly apply to viruses.
The Examiner disagrees because while the instant claim 1 recites “a virus-inactivating liquid agent” in the preamble, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention are evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02. In the instant case, the recitation of being “virus-inactivating” does not result in a structural difference in the claimed product; and the product, as claimed, is anticipated by Rasool.
Additionally, Rasool discloses the same components as the instantly claimed product (i.e., Ti3C2Tx, where T represents the terminal functional group O, OH and/or F) and would therefore be reasonably expected to be virus inactivating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Maintained)
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Rasool et al. (US 2018/0304208 A1).
Rasool is believed to be anticipatory as described above, but in the interest of completeness of prosecution, purely arguendo, and for the purposes of this ground of rejection only, Rasool will be interpreted as if it is not anticipatory.
In that case, Rasool could be construed as not clearly and unequivocally disclosing the claimed invention or directing those skilled in the art to the claimed invention without any need for picking, choosing and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference. Namely, one skilled in the art would need to choose a thickness of 1 nm disclosed at [claim 17] for the particles disclosed at [0044].
Nevertheless, claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Rasool, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, to yield predictable results. In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., Ti3C2Tx, and thickness of Ti3C2Tx particles) were known in the prior art (e.g., Rasool) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious because Rasool discloses the antimicrobial agent, Ti3C2Tx, where T represents the terminal functional group O, OH and/or F, that has at least one two-dimensional layer. Ti3C2Tx is in aqueous suspension and coated on a substrate [0044]. The particle nanosheets of the two-dimensional metal carbide have a thickness of 1 nm [claim 17].
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Rasool discloses Ti3C2 [0044].
Claim 3 is rendered prima facie obvious because Rasool discloses the particle nanosheets of the two-dimensional metal carbide have a thickness of 1 nm [claim 17]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Rasool discloses the liquid medium is water [0044].
Claim 6 is rendered prima facie obvious because Rasool discloses the content of Ti3C2Tx is from 10 µg/mL to 200 mg/mL [0057]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 9 is rendered prima facie obvious because the particles do not include chlorine or bromine (full document).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2025 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Rasool et al. (US 2018/0304208 A1) in view of Sugiura (US 2019/0045793 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Rasool was previously discussed.
Rasool does not disclose the composition includes a dispersant, as recited in claim 5.
Sugiura teaches an antimicrobial coating composition [abstract] [0001] with a dispersant [0065]. Sugiura teaches that the dispersant ensures uniform dispersion of the agents in the coating composition [0065].
Since Rasool generally teaches an antimicrobial coating composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a dispersant, within the teachings of Rasool, because Sugiura teaches a dispersant in a coating composition. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a dispersant because Sugiura teaches that the dispersant ensures uniform dispersion of the agents in the coating composition [0065].
Rasool does not disclose the liquid medium has a pH of 2.7 to 7.0, as recited in claim 7.
Sugiura teaches that the pH of the coating composition is preferably 3 or more and 9 or less [0072]. Sugiura teaches that a lower pH value causes corrosion of the metal of the production machine, deterioration of the treatment liquid, or deterioration of the stability. On the other hand, if a higher pH value is used the effect of the composition is decreased [0072].
Since Rasool generally teaches an antimicrobial coating composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a pH value from 3 to 9, within the teachings of Rasool, because Sugiura teaches this pH range for a coating composition. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this pH range because Sugiura teaches that a lower pH value causes corrosion of the metal of the production machine, deterioration of the treatment liquid, or deterioration of the stability and if a higher pH value is used the effect of the composition is decreased [0072]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Rasool does not disclose the particles include a metal oxide, as recited in claim 10 such as titanium oxide, as recited in claim 11.
Sugiura teaches the coating composition includes titanium oxide [0041]. Sugiura teaches that titanium oxide has an antiviral effect [0042] [0113].
Since Rasool generally teaches an antimicrobial coating composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include titanium oxide, within the teachings of Rasool, because Sugiura teaches titanium oxide in a coating composition. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use titanium oxide because Sugiura teaches that titanium oxide has an antiviral effect [0042] [0113].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Rasool et al. (US 2018/0304208 A1) in view of Gane et al. (US 2017/0164616 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Rasool was previously discussed.
Rasool does not disclose the particles include Li, and a content of the Li in the particles is 20 ppm by mass or less, as recited in claim 8.
Gane teaches an antimicrobial composition [abstract] [0006] which is used as a coating [0024] with lithium ions in an amount of 20 to 60,000 ppm [0011] [0103]. Gane teaches that the composition containing lithium ions in this amount is effective against microbial contamination and provides antiseptic properties [0006] [0015].
Since Rasool generally teaches an antimicrobial coating composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lithium in an amount of 20 to 60,000 ppm, within the teachings of Rasool, because Gane teaches this amount of lithium in an antimicrobial coating composition. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use lithium, in the amount taught by Gane, because Gane teaches that the composition containing lithium ions in this amount is effective against microbial contamination and provides antiseptic properties [0006] [0015]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner , Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612