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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/16/2025, have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objects are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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.
The Declaration of Dr. Devang Patel under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 7/16/2025 is insufficient to overcome the following grounds of rejection for the reasons set forth further below.
Claims 1-5, 9, 14, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by EP 3536771 to Stolte. Stolte discloses disinfecting and solidying tablets, the tablets comprising at least one binding agent such as MGDA (paragraph 8), at least one solidifying agent such as polyethylene glycol hydroxyethylene cellulose (a solidifying agent) (paragraphs 44 and 51), a disinfectant (paragraphs 34-47) such as didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride (a low molecular weight quaternary ammonium compound) (paragraph 37), additives such as surfactants (paragraph 8), a polyacrylate (a superabsorbent polymer), and dichloroisocyanurate (dichloro-s-triazinetrione) (paragraph 33). Stolte further discloses a kit comprising a plurality of its disinfecting and solidifying tablets and a plurality of containers configured to house a liquid, such as plastic (paragraphs 40 and 65-68). The container may be made from a flexible film material (varying shape) (paragraph 65). The container is made to contain an aqueous medium (paragraphs 56-57). Stolte teaches a pH of about 7.5 to about 10.5 (paragraph 54), and further that the binding agent may be present in the range of about 10 to about 90% (paragraph 12), the solidifying agent may be present in the range of up to about 20 wt%, and the disinfectant may be present in a range of up to about 75 wt% (paragraph 37). In addition, Stolte teaches that other agents that are solidifying agents may be added, such as polyacrylate may be added, and be present in amounts of over 70 weight percent (paragraph 21).
Stolte fails to teach the presently claimed weight percentages of binding agent, solidifying agent, and disinfectant. Stolte further fails to teach a pH of about 5-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the weight percentages of the binding agent, solidifying agent, and disinfectant to optimize the disinfectant properties of the composition. In this way, the artisan would find the present values through routine experimentation. Stolte provides sufficient guidance to this end, as the ranges of about 20 to 90 weight % binding agent, up to about 20 wt% solidifying agent, and up to about 75 wt% disinfectant taught by Stolte overlaps with or nearly touches with the presently claimed ranges. Regarding claims 23-24, which require at least 35 weight percent and at least 50 weight percent, respectively, Stolte teaches that polyacrylate (a solidifying agent) may be present in amounts of over 70 weight percent (paragraph 21), which overlaps with the presently claimed ranges. It would have been further obvious to optimize the pH of the composition of Stolte to improve the efficacy of the formulation to act as a disinfecting agent. In this way, one would find a pH of about 5-8 through routine experimentation. The prior art provide sufficient guidance to this end as the pH range of about 7.5 to about 10.5 disclosed by Stolte overlaps with the present range. “‘[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)” MPEP § 2144.05, II.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Stolte teaches up to 20%, the examiner’s response is that Stolte teaches for incorporation of hydroxyethylene cellulose, it teaches up to about 20%. Regarding applicant’s arggment that a teaching of up to 20% [sic “up to about 20%”] constitutes a teaching away from values over 20%, the examiner’s response is that the range of up to about 20 wt% taught by Stolte nearly touches applicant’s range and therefore provides sufficient guidance for the artisan to find applicant’s value through routine experimentation. However, in addition to teaching incorporation of the solidifying agent hydroxyethyl cellulose, Stolte further teaches incorporation of the solidifying agent polyacrylate which can be present in up to 70% of the composition (paragraph 21) (“suitable solidifying agents can include… polyacrylate”; specification, page 8). The examiner appreciates the declaration of Dr. Patel. The declaration, which states that a tablet a tablet that includes 20-90% binding agent, up to 20 wt% solidifying agent, and 0.5-20 wt% disinfectant would not have optimal tablet property, the examiner’s response is that the rejection is not based on a tablet having up to 20 wt% solidifying agent, but a tablet that has at least 25 weight percent (claim 1), at least 35 weight percent (claim 23), and at least 50 weight percent (claim 24). For the reasons given above, the prior art’s ranges overlap with these ranges.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3536771 to Stolte in view of CN1019335613A (hereafter CN ‘101; a Machine Translation is already in record). The revalent portions of Stolte are given above.
Stolte fails to teach incorporation of microcrystalline cellulose and sodium polyacrylate.
CN’ 101 teaches that high polymers, such as of microcrystalline cellulose and sodium polyacrylate, aid in preparing a uniformly dispersed composition for disinfecting compositions (Machine Translation, page 2, paragraph beginning “High Polymer comprises”; page 3, top line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate microcrystalline cellulose and sodium polyacrylate into the composition of Stolte. The motivation for this would have been to prepare a uniformly dispersed disinfecting composition.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that Stolte nor Stolte in view of CN ‘101 render obvious applicant’s invention. The examiner’s response is that the references render obvious applicant’s invention including applicant’s ranges for the same reasons given above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W DICKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM to 7:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL W DICKINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
October 9, 2025