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 .
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.
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) 1-7, 13, 14, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansemir et al (EP 0252278).
Scope of prior art
In claim 36 Bansemir teaches a disinfectant composition comprising:
Lactic acid
Quaternary ammonium compound (0.05 – 0.5 wt%)
PVP with K value 88-96
Water in quantity which makes up the remaining weight of the composition. (pages 3-4).
With regards to quaternary ammonium compound (claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), art teaches N-alkyl-N,N-dimethylbenzylammounium chloride (page 6, paragraph 3) in concertation above 0.05wt% and up to 0.5wt%
With regards to PVP (claims 6, 7 and 12), art teaches K value from 88-96 (page 7, paragraph 6). While art does not recite the MW of PVP, the recited K value range represents the currently claimed molecular weight. 3 wt% recited in claim 36 of Bansemit is within the range of current claim 12.
With regards to organic acid component (claims 13), art teaches lactic acid (claim 36).
With regards to pH (claim 16), art teaches acidic pH in the range of 4-6, which overlaps with the claimed pH 1-5 (page 7, last paragraph).
With regards to claims claims 20-21, directed to a method of disinfecting a surface by spraying the composition: Art teaches disinfecting skin, which is meets the limitation of claim 20 (page 7, last paragraph). Art also teaches application of the composition as a spray (page 8, third paragraph).
Ascertaining the difference
Bansemit teaches the components of the claimed composition with overlapping ranges for some of the parameters such as pH and wt% of components.
Bansemit teaches addition of chlorhexidine or quaternary ammonium compound, while the claims are limited to only the ammonium compound.
Bansemit is silent with regards to biocidal properties of a film formed from the composition.
Obviousness
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the current application, would have found it obvious to prepare a biocidal composition that is within the scope of the composition described by Bansemit. Art provides suggestion, motivation and expectation of success to prepare the claimed composition by demonstrating its antimicrobial activity (Examples).
With regards to claims 17-19, directed biocidal properties of a film that could be formed from the composition. While Bansemit does not disclose the specifically claimed biocidal properties of a film, the properties in question are derived from a composition having the currently claimed components. Since the components of the arts’ composition and the claimed composition are the same, it is inherent that the arts’ composition can be used to prepare a film having the claimed antibacterial properties.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehgal et al (WO 2019199877).
Scope of prior art
Sehgal teaches disinfectant compositions that can be applied by spraying or wiping (paragraph [0065]).
The compositions contain a quaternary ammonium compound. The list includes alkyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride (paragraph [0022]). Compositions further comprise a film forming polymer. Art lists PVP and chitosan as suitable film forming polymers (paragraph [0038]. Composition also comprises an organic acid including lactic acid in the amount up to 7000ppm (= 0.7wt%) (paragraph [0051). Lastly, composition comprises a polar carrier which is water (paragraph [0061]).
In paragraph [0071] art teaches that a film formed from the composition kills 99.9% of microorganisms according to EPA protocol #01-1A
Ascertaining the difference
Sehgal fails to exemplify a single composition having the currently claimed components.
Obviousness
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the current application would have found it obvious to prepare and use a composition comprising alkyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride, PVP or chitosan, lactic acid, and water. The currently claimed components of biocidal resistant composition are taught by Sehgal and a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to utilize them in a single composition. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to determine through routine experimentation the optimal amount of each component in the composition.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehgal et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buzinski et al (US 2009/013443).
Seghal fails to teach methanesulfonic acid as the organic acid in the composition
Buzinski teaches surface cleaning compositions comprising organic acid which can be selected from lactic acid or methanesulfonic acid. Buzinski establishes equivalency between organic acids used for surface treatment (paragraph [0046])
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to substitute lactic acid of Seghal for methanesulfonic acid with an expectation that the resulting product would retain disinfectant properties of Seghal. Expectation of success if based on equivalency between acids taught by Buzinski.
Conclusion
Claims 1-22 are pending
Claims 1-22 are rejected
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEVGENY VALENROD whose telephone number is (571)272-9049. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Amy L Clark can be reached at 571-272-1310. 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.
/YEVGENY VALENROD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628