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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendments to the Claims and Arguments/Remarks filed 10 November 2025, in response to the Office Correspondence dated 04 September 2025, are acknowledged.
The listing of Claims filed 10 November 2025, have been examined. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending. Claim 1 is amended, claim 8 is canceled and new claim 21 has been added. Amended claim 1 and new claim 21 are supported by the originally-filed disclosure.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 10 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Leslie (WO2019055925A1) has been fully considered and is persuasive.
The Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 is no longer anticipated by Leslie because it now recites, “one or more polymeric enhancers comprising an alkoxylated polyol ester”. The Examiner agrees. Because Leslie fails to disclose the newly added limitation of claim 1, the prior anticipation rejection can no longer be sustained. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Leslie is withdrawn. Claim 8 has been cancelled and therefore the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Leslie (WO2019055925A1) in view of Allen (US9506013B2) is moot.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made over Leslie (WO2019055925A1) in view of Allen (US9506013B2) that now applies to amended independent claim 1 and all claims dependent thereon (claims 2-7, 9-21), as detailed below.
The Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below in the Response to Arguments.
New Rejection
The following new rejection is made from the previous Office Correspondence dated 04 September 2025, as the Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented below based on the amended/newly cited limitations.
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-AlIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie et al. (WO2019055925A1; publication date 21 March 2019), hereinafter referred to as Leslie, in view of Allen et al. (US9506013B2; published 29 November 2016), hereinafter referred to as Allen.
Leslie discloses disinfecting compositions containing 10-40 wt.% of one or more alcohols, specifically including C1-C6 alcohols such as ethanol and isopropanol (¶[00035]). In Example 6, embodiments include up to 50 wt. % (Table 6, ¶[00099]). Thus, Example 6 teaches the ethanol use levels at the value ranges specified by the limitations of the instant claims 2-5.
Leslie discloses the use of one or more polymeric compounds including “…from about 0.50 to about 3.0 wt.% of two or more of alkyl polyglucoside…” (¶[00016]), wherein an embodiment using 0.50 to about 1.5 wt.% alkyl polyglucoside is taught in Example 5 (Table 5, ¶[00097]), thus teaching polymeric compound use levels within the instant claim 6 and 7 ranges.
Leslie teaches the use of 1,2 octane diol [caprylyl glycol] an amount from about 0.01- 5.0 wt.%, based on the total weight of the antimicrobial composition (¶[00008]), encompassing the instant claim 9 and 10 ranges and the limitation of instant claim 11.
Leslie teaches the composition comprising two or more surfactants (claim 1; one surfactant as the enhancer and the other as an additional surfactant), in which the surfactants encompass nonionic surfactant or a mixture of nonionic surfactants ((¶[00043]-¶[00045]), the composition comprising one or more pH adjusting agents (¶[00062] and ¶[00092]), and the composition comprising water (¶[00074]) thus teaching the limitations instant claims 12-14.
Leslie explicitly teaches that the composition may have a pH of less than 3 (¶[00060]), and a pH as low as about 1.5 (claim 11 and ¶[00020]), thus further teaching the pH limitation of the instant claim 1 in addition to the C1-10 alcohols, polymeric enhancer and secondary enhancer and the limitations of instant claims 15-17.
Leslie teaches disinfecting/santizing a surface by contacting the composition with the surface (¶[00031] and ¶[00032]) in the form of a wipe (¶[00031]), wherein the composition has efficacy against spores (¶[00088]), thus teaching the limitations of instant claims 18-20.
Leslie does not explicitly disclose the use of an alkoxylated polyol ester as the polymeric enhancer, specified by the newly cited limitation of instant claim 1.
Allen teaches that alkoxylated polyol esters are well-known, compatible, and advantageous additives for disinfecting and sanitizing compositions. Allen teaches the use of alkoxylated polyol [fatty] esters in low-foaming disinfectants and sanitizing agents as, “The alkoxylated fatty esters and their sulfonated or sulfitated derivatives can be incorporated into many compositions for use as, for example, surfactants, emulsifiers, skin-feel agents, film formers, rheological modifiers, biocides, biocide potentiators, solvents, release agents, and conditioners. The compositions find value in diverse end uses, such as personal care (liquid cleansing products, conditioning bars, oral care products), household products (liquid and powdered laundry detergents, liquid and sheet fabric softeners, hard and soft surface cleaners, sanitizers and disinfectants), and industrial or institutional cleaners.” (page 8, column 11, lines 21-31). Allen thus teaches the an alkoxylated polyol ester and its utility as a biocide potentiator/enhancer in disinfectants.
Regarding new claim 21, which limits the polymeric enhancer to the alkoxylated polyol ester having CAS No. 1685270-84-1, Allen broadly teaches alkoxylated polyol esters suitable for disinfectants, wherein the selection of a specific species of alkoxylated polyol ester having CAS No. 1685270-84-1 relative to the alkoxylated polyol esters genus disclosed by Allen would be an obvious selection. Selection of a single species from a known genus, absent demonstrated criticality, is ordinarily obvious (see In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to include alkoxylated polyol esters in the disinfecting formulations taught Leslie. Leslie discloses disinfecting compositions containing high levels of C1–C10 alcohols (e.g., ethanol or isopropanol), additional secondary enhancers such as glycols, and acidic conditions (pH < 3) to improve antimicrobial efficacy. The compositions are clearly directed to hard-surface or wipe-based disinfectants where performance stability, spreadability, and reduced streaking or foaming are desirable attributes.
Allen teaches that alkoxylated polyol esters are widely used as low-foaming emulsifiers, stabilizers, and solubilizers in disinfecting or sanitizing compositions. Allen directly teaches that alkoxylated polyol esters are a known class of compounds used to potentiate biocides and improve formulations in disinfectants. Their inclusion would be expected to improve wetting and spread on surfaces, enhance deposition of active ingredients, and provide formulation stability even in high-alcohol, acidic systems. Substituting one known class of polymeric enhancer (alkyl polyglucoside, from Leslie) with another known class of polymeric enhancer/biocide potentiator (alkoxylated polyol ester, from Allen) is an obvious design choice within the ordinary skill of a formulator.
Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate alkoxylated polyol esters, or more specifically CAS No. 1685270-84-1, into the formulations of Leslie to achieve the desired disinfecting performance, stability, and optimize application properties such as surface coverage and reduce undesirable foaming, because alkoxylated polyol esters were already recognized as compatible co-formulants in alcohol-based and acidic cleaning/disinfecting systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving stable, effective disinfectant formulations upon combining them with the compositions of Leslie.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks of the reply, filed 10 November 2025, have been fully considered.
The Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 is no longer anticipated by Leslie because it now recites, “one or more polymeric enhancers comprising an alkoxylated polyol ester”. The Examiner agrees. Leslie discloses polymeric compounds such as alkyl polyglucosides, secondary enhancers such as glycols, acidic pH conditions, and alcohol-based disinfecting systems. However, Leslie does not expressly or inherently disclose a polymeric enhancer comprising an alkoxylated polyol ester, nor does Leslie describe polymeric enhancers having the structural characteristics of alkoxylated polyol esters as claimed. Because Leslie fails to disclose the newly added limitation of claim 1, the prior anticipation rejection can no longer be sustained. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Leslie is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claim 8 has been cancelled and the rejection is now considered moot, however, a new rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Leslie in view of Allen has been made.
The Applicant argues that the combination of Leslie and Allen would not have rendered amended claim 1 obvious, asserting that the alkoxylated polyol ester functions as a surprising synergistic efficacy enhancer, and that Allen is directed primarily to unrelated applications such as agrochemical adjuvants. The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive, because Leslie teaches alcohol-based disinfecting compositions (30–60 wt.% alcohol), secondary enhancers such as glycols, acidic pH environments (pH < 3), surface disinfectants, wipes, and spore inactivation systems and Allen teaches alkoxylated polyol esters as multifunctional formulation ingredients, use of such esters as biocide potentiators, surfactants, wetting agents, emulsifiers, and stabilizers, explicit applicability to sanitizers and disinfectants, including alcohol-based and acidic systems. The Applicant’s statement that the specific alkoxylated polyol ester was previously only known as an adjuvant... in agrochemical applications is not a barrier to obviousness. Allen is not limited to agricultural contexts, but expressly teaches suitability for disinfecting and sanitizing compositions. The fact that a specific compound within this known class may have also been used in another technical field does not render its use in a field where the class is already known (disinfectants) non-obvious. The only substantive distinction between amended claim 1 and Leslie is the inclusion of “one or more polymeric enhancers comprising an alkoxylated polyol ester”. Allen expressly teaches this class of compounds for use in disinfecting compositions, including as biocide potentiators.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the motivation to combine Leslie with Allen is explicitly supported by the references themselves. Leslie seeks to improve disinfectant efficacy, surface wetting, and stability under high-alcohol, low-pH conditions. Allen teaches alkoxylated polyol esters as compatible co-formulants that improve wetting, deposition, and performance of disinfectants and sanitizers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate alkoxylated polyol esters from Allen into the disinfecting compositions of Leslie to improve surface coverage, enhance interaction between alcohol and microbial surfaces, and maintain stability in acidic, high-alcohol systems. Such optimization represents predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143).
The Applicant relies on statements in the specification asserting “surprising” and “synergistic” efficacy. These arguments are not persuasive because no comparative data in the claims limits the invention to formulations achieving the alleged synergy, the claims are not restricted to the specific CAS-numbered compound (except claim 21), and enhancement of alcohol penetration and antimicrobial efficacy through surfactants or wetting agents was already recognized in the art, including Allen’s disclosure of biocide potentiation. Attorney argument and conclusory statements, without commensurate claim scope or evidence of criticality, are insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness (see In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP § 716.01(c)).
Regarding new claim 21, which limits the polymeric enhancer to the alkoxylated polyol ester having CAS No. 1685270-84-1, Allen broadly teaches alkoxylated polyol esters suitable for disinfectants, and Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed compound exhibits structural or functional differences sufficient to confer nonobviousness relative to the genus disclosed by Allen. Selection of a single species from a known genus, absent demonstrated criticality, is ordinarily obvious (see In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Thus, claims 1-7, 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie in view of Allen.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 (87 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’ s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615