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 Objections
Claims 1, 15, 16, 17 & 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: they recite the limitation “the tablet” when the initially recited limitation reads “A disinfecting and solidifying tablet” in the preamble of Claim 1, and all successive preambles of the dependent claims read “The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim…”. As a result, Applicant inconsistently applies the use of the phrase “tablet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-8, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20 and their dependent claims 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 3 recites the limitation “e.g.,…” on lines 7, 8 & 9 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the solidifying agent” on line. It is not clear if only one “solidifying agent” is required now, or if it is a different limitation from the previously recited limitation “at least one solidifying agent” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the disinfectant” on line. It is not clear if only one “disinfectant” is required now, or if it is a different limitation from the previously recited limitation “at least one disinfectant” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “at least one binding agent”, “solidifying agent”, and “at least one disinfectant”. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “at least one binding agent”, “at least one solidifying agent”, and “at least one disinfectant” as already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “binding agent”, “solidifying agent”, and “disinfectant”. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “at least one binding agent”, “at least one solidifying agent”, and “at least one disinfectant” as already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “solidifying agent”. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “at least one solidifying agent” as already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the solidifying agent”, and “the disinfectant”. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “at least one solidifying agent”, and “at least one disinfectant” as already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the tablet”. It is not clear if this limitation refers to the same group as “a plurality of…tablets” as previously recited in the claim, or if it refers to only one tablet in particular. Examiner interprets it to refer to the whole group. Claim 13 recites this limitation too.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “The kit of claim 1” but Claim 1 is a “disinfecting and solidifying tablet”, not a “kit”. The Examiner interprets Claim 14 to refer to a “tablet”, not a kit for the purposes of examination.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “at least one binding agent”, “solidifying agent”, and “at least one disinfectant”. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “at least one binding agent”, “at least one solidifying agent”, and “at least one disinfectant” as already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the solidifying agent”, and “the disinfectant”. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “at least one solidifying agent”, and “at least one disinfectant” as already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hratko et al., (“Hratko”, US 2007/0172412).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 8, 9 & 14, Hratko discloses a disinfecting and solidifying tablet, (See paragraph [0043], [0012]), the tablet comprising: at least one binding agent, (See paragraph [0035]); at least one solidifying agent, (See paragraph [0033]); and at least one disinfectant, (See paragraph [0029]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, further comprising one or more additives selected from UV stabilizers and UV absorbers, dyes, antimicrobial agents, lubricants, pigments or other colorants, impact modifiers, antioxidants, stabilizers, surfactants, flow promoters, solid solvents, and combinations thereof, (See paragraph [0052]).
Claim 3: The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the at least one binding agent is selected from cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, cellulose derivatives, low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose (L-HPC), dicalcium phosphate, lactose, sucrose, ethyl cellulose, polydextrose, polyethylene glycol, polyethylene oxide, zeolites, clays, silica gel, aluminum oxide, activated carbon polymethacrylates, polyvinyl alcohols, partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl acetate (PVAc), polysaccharides (e.g., alginic acid, alginates, galactomannans), waxes, fats, fatty acid derivatives, cellulose esters, hydrated chelating agents (e.g., HEDTA, EDTA, MGDA), hydrated carboxylate (e.g., hydrated citrate salts, hydrated tartrate salts), hydrated polycarboxylate, hydrated anionic polymer, hydrated sodium hydroxide, or combinations thereof, (See paragraph [0035]; “waxes”).
Claim 4: The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the solidifying agent is selected from sodium polyacrylate, agar, gelatin, methyl cellulose, xanthan gum, guar gum, carboxyvinyl polymer, hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, acrylic acid-alkyl methacrylate copolymer, casein, zein, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, branched esters, wax, behenyl behenate, behenyl benzoate, alkyl methyl siloxanes, ozokerite, and combinations thereof, (See paragraph [0033]).
Claim 5: The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the disinfectant is selected from dichloro-s-triazinetrione, sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, benzalkonium chloride, biguanides, bisbiguanides, high molecular weight quaternary ammonium compounds, silver and silver complexes, low molecular weight quaternary ammonium compounds, glutaraldehyde, phenol, isopropyl methylphenol, dequalinium chloride, benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, alkyldiaminoethylglycine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine gluconate, triclosan, 1,8-cineol, ethylene oxide, sodium chlorite, sodium hypochlorite, peroxyacetic acid, ethyl alcohol, octanoic acid, amylphenol, isopropyl alcohol, caprylic acid, or combinations thereof, (See paragraph [0029]; “NaDCCA” or “sodium dichloroisocyanurate” which is dichloro-s-triazinetrione).
Claim 8: The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the solidifying agent comprises one or more superabsorbent polymers, (See paragraph [0033]).
Claim 9: The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, having a pH of about 5-8, (See paragraph [0049]; the claimed range is overlapped and anticipated from 6 to 8, or at 7).
Claim 14: The kit of claim 1, wherein the liquid is selected from water, buffer, bodily fluids, or combinations thereof, (See paragraph [0047], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hratko discloses a kit comprising: a plurality of disinfecting and solidifying tablets and a plurality of containers configured to house a liquid, (See paragraph [0084]); wherein the tablet comprises at least one binding agent, at least one solidifying agent, and at least one disinfectant, (See paragraph [0084]; US 6,699,404 is incorporated herein by reference in which Example 5 details ).
Regarding Claim 15, Hratko discloses a method of solidifying and disinfecting a liquid, the method comprising: contacting the liquid with the tablet of claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1) within a container, (See paragraph [0068], [0069]), wherein after the tablet dissolves within the liquid, tablet solidifies to a solid, semi-solid, or gel and is disinfected, (See paragraph [0022]).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 13, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hratko et al., (“Hratko”, US 2007/0172412), in view of Thangaraj et al., (“Thangaraj”, US 2008/0067470).
Regarding Claim 6, Hratko discloses the disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose comprising about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant.
Thangaraj discloses comprising about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj; cellulose reads upon binding agent as claimed, and overlaps from 20 to 50 wt%), about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj; sodium polyacrylate reads upon solidifying agent which overlaps from 1 to 50 wt%), and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj; the chlorite used is effective at low percents such as 5 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the tablet of Hratko by incorporating comprising about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant as in Thangaraj in order to “enhance the release of chlorine dioxide…and/or to enhance the disintegration of tablets”, (See paragraph [0050], Thangaraj), in which “a relatively high yield of chlorine dioxide is obtained from a solid composition that has…a relatively lesser amount of alkali chlorite salt”, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj).
Regarding Claim 10, Hratko discloses the disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the disinfectant is dichloro-s-triazinetrione, (See paragraph [0029]; “NaDCCA” or “sodium dichloroisocyanurate” which is dichloro-s-triazinetrione), but does not disclose the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose or the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate.
Thangaraj discloses the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose, (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj, “microcrystalline cellulose”), and the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate, (See paragraph [0050], [0063], [0068], Thangaraj, “sodium polyacrylate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the tablet of Hratko by incorporating the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose and the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate as in Thangaraj in order to provide “a diluent for the sodium chlorites and solid acids to avoid premature release of chlorine dioxide”, (See paragraph [0051], Thangaraj), and controlled exposure [which] is achieved by [polyacrylates] that at least functionally, create a barrier between the solid composition and the water”, (See paragraph [0063], Thangaraj), “thereby increasing the amount of chlorine dioxide released”, (See paragraph [0056], Thangaraj).
Regarding Claim 13, Hratko discloses the kit of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose comprising about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant.
Thangaraj discloses comprising about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj; cellulose reads upon binding agent as claimed, and overlaps from 20 to 50 wt%), about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj; sodium polyacrylate reads upon solidifying agent which overlaps from 1 to 50 wt%), and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj; the chlorite used is effective at low percents such as 5 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the kit of Hratko by incorporating comprising about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant as in Thangaraj in order to “enhance the release of chlorine dioxide…and/or to enhance the disintegration of tablets”, (See paragraph [0050], Thangaraj), in which “a relatively high yield of chlorine dioxide is obtained from a solid composition that has…a relatively lesser amount of alkali chlorite salt”, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj).
Regarding Claim 19, Hratko discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the tablet comprises about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant.
Thangaraj discloses wherein the tablet comprises about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj; cellulose reads upon binding agent as claimed, and overlaps from 20 to 50 wt%), about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj; sodium polyacrylate reads upon solidifying agent which overlaps from 1 to 50 wt%), and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj; the chlorite used is effective at low percents such as 5 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hratko by incorporating wherein the tablet comprises about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant as in Thangaraj in order to “enhance the release of chlorine dioxide…and/or to enhance the disintegration of tablets”, (See paragraph [0050], Thangaraj), in which “a relatively high yield of chlorine dioxide is obtained from a solid composition that has…a relatively lesser amount of alkali chlorite salt”, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj).
Regarding Claim 20, Hratko discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the disinfectant is dichloro-s-triazinetrione, but does not disclose the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose or the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate.
Thangaraj discloses the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose (See paragraph [0050], [0068], Thangaraj, “microcrystalline cellulose”), and the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate, (See paragraph [0050], [0063], [0068], Thangaraj, “sodium polyacrylate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hratko by incorporating the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose and the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate as in Thangaraj in order to provide “a diluent for the sodium chlorites and solid acids to avoid premature release of chlorine dioxide”, (See paragraph [0051], Thangaraj), and controlled exposure [which] is achieved by [polyacrylates] that at least functionally, create a barrier between the solid composition and the water”, (See paragraph [0063], Thangaraj), “thereby increasing the amount of chlorine dioxide released”, (See paragraph [0056], Thangaraj).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hratko et al., (“Hratko”, US 2007/0172412), in view of Thangaraj et al., (“Thangaraj”, US 2008/0067470), in further view of Davidson et al., (“Davidson”, US 5,185,161), in further view of Ho et al., (“Ho”, US 2006/0052438).
Regarding Claim 7, Hratko discloses the disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose comprising about 60-70 weight percent binding agent, about 30-40 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-10 weight percent disinfectant.
Thangaraj discloses about 1-10 weight percent disinfectant, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj; the chlorite used is effective at low percents such as 5 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hratko by incorporating about 1-10 weight percent disinfectant as in Thangaraj in order to “enhance the release of chlorine dioxide…and/or to enhance the disintegration of tablets”, (See paragraph [0050], Thangaraj), in which “a relatively high yield of chlorine dioxide is obtained from a solid composition that has…a relatively lesser amount of alkali chlorite salt”, (See paragraph [0046], Thangaraj).
Davidson discloses about 30-40 weight percent solidifying agent, (See column 8, lines 13-18; overlaps/anticipates the claimed range at 30 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hratko by incorporating about 30-40 weight percent solidifying agent as in Davidson because “the amount of thickener…varies depending upon the intended application, the particular acid, the chlorine dioxide liberating compound, and the other additives employed”, (See column 8, lines 13-15, Davidson), which will support the aim of providing “improved sanitizing, disinfecting, and sterilizing compositions”, (See column 3, lines 15-17, Davidson).
Ho discloses comprising about 60-70 weight percent binding agent, (See paragraph [0195], Ho discloses a range from 50 to 99, into which the claimed range falls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hratko by incorporating comprising about 60-70 weight percent binding agent as in Ho because the amount of the binding agent is a result effective variable in which it “can take a wide variety of forms depending on the form of preparation desired for administration”, (See paragraph [0190], Ho), and selecting it such that “tablets and capsules represent the most advantageous…forms” because “of their ease of administration”, (See paragraph [0191], Ho).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hratko et al., (“Hratko”, US 2007/0172412), in view of Thangaraj et al., (“Thangaraj 2”, US 2011/0309297).
Regarding Claim 12, Hratko discloses the kit of claim 11, but does not disclose comprising wherein the plurality of containers are of varying size, shape, or both.
Thangaraj 2 discloses comprising wherein the plurality of containers are of varying size, shape, or both, (See paragraph [0146], Thangaraj 2; different size containers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hratko by incorporating comprising wherein the plurality of containers are of varying size, shape, or both as in Thangaraj 2 so it can be “evaluated for safety (explosion) using porous poly-propylene containers of different sizes, as appropriate for the quantity of [chlorine dioxide generating] composition being” used, (See paragraph [0146], Thangaraj 2).
Claim(s) 16 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hratko et al., (“Hratko”, US 2007/0172412), in view of Lam et al., (“Lam”, US 5,324,447).
Regarding Claim 16, Hratko discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the liquid is about 100% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved. Hratko incorporates by reference US 6,699,404, Speronello, (See paragraph [0041], Hratko; in which US 6,699,404 discusses the disinfecting effect of chorine dioxide in a liquid medium, (See column 2, lines 30-44, Speronello).
Lam discloses wherein the liquid is about 100% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved, (See column 4, lines 3-18, Lam; and See column 2, lines 30-44, Speronello; a six log reduction is known to be 106 reduction hence this would result in 99.9999% disinfection or “about” 100%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hratko by incorporating wherein the liquid is about 100% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved as in Lam in order to “quickly and effectively disinfect” the substance or substrate to be treated, (See column 1, lines 18-21, Lam), since a “fast-acting, stable…disinfecting system…would clearly be advantageous”, (See column 1, lines 40-43, Lam).
Regarding Claim 17, Hratko discloses the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid is about 50-99.99% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved. Hratko incorporates by reference US 6,699,404, Speronello, (See paragraph [0041], Hratko; in which US 6,699,404 discusses the disinfecting effect of chorine dioxide in a liquid medium, (See column 2, lines 30-44, Speronello).
Lam discloses wherein the liquid is about 50-99.99% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved, (See column 4, lines 3-18, Lam; and See column 2, lines 30-44, Speronello; a log reduction is known to be ten-fold reduction hence this would result in 90% disinfection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hratko by incorporating wherein the liquid is about 50-99.99% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved as in Lam in order to “quickly and effectively disinfect” the substance or substrate to be treated, (See column 1, lines 18-21, Lam), since a “fast-acting, stable…disinfecting system…would clearly be advantageous”, (See column 1, lines 40-43, Lam).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hratko et al., (“Hratko”, US 2007/0172412), in view of Wellinghoff et al., (“Wellinghoff”, US 5,705,092).
Regarding Claim 18, Hratko discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the solidifying is an action, (See paragraphs [0041] & [0042], Hratko), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the reaction is irreversible.
Wellinghoff discloses wherein the action is irreversible, (See column 11, lines 58-67, Wellinghoff).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hratko by incorporating wherein the reaction is irreversible as in Wellinghoff so that it “can be optimized to maintain the desired kill concentration for the requisite time”, (See column 12, lines 5-8, Wellinghoff).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-6, 8-17 & 20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of select claims of copending Application No. 18/391,445 (reference application, referred to as ‘445). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1 of the current application, Claims 1, 23 or 24 of ‘445 reads upon a disinfecting and solidifying tablet, (“a disinfecting and solidifying tablet”), the tablet comprising: at least one binding agent, (“at least one binding agent”); at least one solidifying agent, (“at least one solidifying agent”); and at least one disinfectant, (“at least one disinfectant”).
Regarding Claim 2 of the current application, Claim 2 of ‘445 reads upon The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, further comprising one or more additives selected from UV stabilizers and UV absorbers, dyes, antimicrobial agents, lubricants, pigments or other colorants, impact modifiers, antioxidants, stabilizers, surfactants, flow promoters, solid solvents, and combinations thereof, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 3 of the current application, Claim 3 of ‘445 reads upon The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the at least one binding agent is selected from cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, cellulose derivatives, low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose (L-HPC), dicalcium phosphate, lactose, sucrose, ethyl cellulose, polydextrose, polyethylene glycol, polyethylene oxide, zeolites, clays, silica gel, aluminum oxide, activated carbon polymethacrylates, polyvinyl alcohols, partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl acetate (PVAc), polysaccharides (e.g., alginic acid, alginates, galactomannans), waxes, fats, fatty acid derivatives, cellulose esters, hydrated chelating agents (e.g., HEDTA, EDTA, MGDA), hydrated carboxylate (e.g., hydrated citrate salts, hydrated tartrate salts), hydrated polycarboxylate, hydrated anionic polymer, hydrated sodium hydroxide, or combinations thereof., (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 4 of the current application, Claim 4 of ‘445 reads upon The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the solidifying agent is selected from sodium polyacrylate, agar, gelatin, methyl cellulose, xanthan gum, guar gum, carboxyvinyl polymer, hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, acrylic acid-alkyl methacrylate copolymer, casein, zein, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, branched esters, wax, behenyl behenate, behenyl benzoate, alkyl methyl siloxanes, ozokerite, and combinations thereof, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 5 of the current application, Claim 5 of ‘445 reads upon The disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the disinfectant is selected from dichloro-s-triazinetrione, sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, benzalkonium chloride, biguanides, bisbiguanides, high molecular weight quaternary ammonium compounds, silver and silver complexes, low molecular weight quaternary ammonium compounds, glutaraldehyde, phenol, isopropyl methylphenol, dequalinium chloride, benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, alkyldiaminoethylglycine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine gluconate, triclosan, 1,8-cineol, ethylene oxide, sodium chlorite, sodium hypochlorite, peroxyacetic acid, ethyl alcohol, octanoic acid, amylphenol, isopropyl alcohol, caprylic acid, or combinations thereof., (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 6 of the current application, Claim 1 of ‘445 discloses the disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, comprising about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant, (See claim 1 of ‘445).
Regarding Claim 8 of the current application, Claim 8 of ‘445 discloses the disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the solidifying agent comprises one or more superabsorbent polymers, (“one or more superabsorbent polymers”).
Regarding Claim 9 of the current application, Claim 9 of ‘445 discloses the disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, having a pH of about 5- 8, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 10 of the current application, Claim 10 of ‘445 discloses the disinfecting and solidifying tablet of claim 1, wherein the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose, the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate, and the disinfectant is dichloro-s-triazinetrione, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 11 of the current application, Claim 11 of ‘445 discloses a kit comprising: a plurality of disinfecting and solidifying tablets and a plurality of containers configured to house a liquid; wherein the tablet comprises at least one binding agent, at least one solidifying agent, and at least one disinfectant, (combination of Claim 1 and 11 of ‘445).
Regarding Claim 12 of the current application, Claim 12 of ‘445 discloses the kit of claim 11, comprising wherein the plurality of containers are of varying size, shape, or both, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 13 of the current application, Claim 13 of ‘445 discloses the kit of claim 11, wherein the tablet comprises about 20-90 weight percent of at least one binding agent, about 1-70 weight percent solidifying agent, and about 1-20 weight percent of at least one disinfectant, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 14 of the current application, Claim 14 of ‘445 discloses the kit of claim 1, wherein the liquid is selected from water, buffer, bodily fluids, or combinations thereof, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 15 of the current application, Claim 15 of ‘445 discloses a method of solidifying and disinfecting a liquid, the method comprising: contacting the liquid with the tablet of claim 1 within a container, wherein after the tablet dissolves within the liquid, tablet solidifies to a solid, semi-solid, or gel and is disinfected., (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 16 of the current application, Claim 16 of ‘445 discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the liquid is about 100% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 17 of the current application, Claim 17 of ‘445 discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the liquid is about 50-99.99% disinfected after the tablet has been dissolved, (verbatim).
Regarding Claim 20 of the current application, Claim 20 of ‘445 discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one binding agent is microcrystalline cellulose, the solidifying agent is sodium polyacrylate, and the disinfectant is dichloro-s-triazinetrione, (verbatim).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779