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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden if restriction were withdrawn and that by also examining Invention II, the Examiner would be performing relevant searches in the examination of Invention I, by searching methods for creating relevant compositions. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious burden if restriction were withdrawn and the Examiner had to examine both inventions. As previously stated, the technical subject matters of Group I and Group II inventions are distinct, requiring separate searches in different fields (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses and using electronic resources, such as Google, Google patents, etc., to search over an immense database), employing different search strategies and search queries, and analyzing the search results. Furthermore, a restriction requirement is not just about the search but also about the examination. The inventions raise separate, non-prior art issues, such as different 35 U.S.C. 112 issues (e.g., written description and enablement) that require separate, extensive analysis. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 4, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on the 2nd line from the bottom, applicant need to insert --- is --- between “polymer” and “up to “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, applicant need to change “and” to --- or ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2, applicant need to change “and” to --- or ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: on the last line, applicant need to change “and” to --- or --- . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: (i) on line 2, applicant need to change “bromide, chloride,” to --- bromide or chloride, ---. Appropriate correction is required; (ii) on line 4, applicant need to change “and” to --- or ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4, applicant need to change “and” to --- or ---. 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 8 and 9 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.
The term “strong” as in “a strong ionic detergent” or “a strong anionic detergent” in claims 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAYAK et al (US 2018/0303086 A1) (with “Ammonium Lauryl Sulphate Market”, an internet article published by Persistence Market Research and obtained from the website: https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/ammonium-lauryl-sulphate-market.asp#:~:text=Market%20Overview,and%20very%20low%20production%20cost., which is being cited here merely to support the Examiner’s assertion that ammonium lauryl sulfate belongs to a class of strong anionic surfactants).
Nayak teaches (abstract and [0001]) an antimicrobial cleansing composition (containing at least one silver compound and a combination of anionic surfactants) and a method of cleaning or disinfecting a surface, such as skin (instant porous substrate) (throughout its specification (see for example [0052]-[0054]), Nayak impliedly teaches that the surface is a skin surface).
In Examples 1 and 5 (see [0101]), Nayak teaches an example of its inventive composition, which was formed by mixing: (i) 5 g of fatty acid soap composition (provided in Table 2); (ii) 0.5 mL of 10 ppm stock solution of silver-DTPA in distilled water (instant anti-microbial silver compound); (iii) 3 mL of 10% ammonium lauryl sulphate (ALS) (instant anionic detergent included in instant excipient mix of claim 5 as well as instant strong ionic (anionic) detergent included in instant excipient mix of claims 8 and 9 (as evidenced by the internet article “Ammonium Lauryl Sulphate Market” – see the 1st paragraph under Market Overview)); and (iv) 1.5 mL of water. The fatty acid soap composition provided in Table 2 contains 0.5 wt.% of Cellulose Ether (instant binder polymer of claim 1). Nayak’s ALS (which teaches instant strong ionic (anionic) detergent included in instant excipient mix) and the rest of the compounds (other than the cellulose ether) contained in the fatty acid soap composition together make up instant excipient mix of claim 1.
Nayak’s composition of Examples 1 and 5 does not contain instant carrier particles which provide a ceramic matrix for the anti-microbial compound. However, Nayak teaches ([0058]) that its antimicrobial composition may further include 0-10 wt.% of opacifiers, such as titanium dioxide to enhance the appearance or properties of its product. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include up to 10 wt.% of titanium dioxide (instant carrier particles of claim 1 and instant carrier particles of claim 3 which are photocatalytic agents including at least one of titanium compounds – see the last 3 lines of pg.11 and the first 2 lines of pg.12 of present specification) in Nayak’s composition of Examples 1 and 5 so as to enhance the appearance or properties of its composition.
Thus, Nayak teaches all of the claimed components of claim 1 (water, anti-microbial compound, carrier particles that provide a ceramic matrix for the anti-microbial compound, binder polymer and an excipient mix).
As to the claimed amounts for the components of claim 1, first of all, the total amount of water contained in Nayak’s composition of Examples 1 and 2 (including the fatty acid soap composition of Table 2) is: (77.62% water from the fatty acid soap composition x 5 g) + 0.5 g (i.e., water from 0.5 mL of 10 ppm stock solution of silver-DTPA) + 90% water from the 10% ALS x 3 g (i.e., 3 mL) + 1.5 g (i.e., 1.5 mL), which gives 8.536 g of water contained in the total weight (approximately 10 g) of the composition of Examples 1 and 2 including fatty acid soap composition. Since the composition is mostly made up of water, it is the Examiner’s position that the density of the composition will be close to 1 g/mL (which is the density of water). (i) With respect to the amount for the silver-DTPA, since there is 10 ppm of silver-DTPA in 0.5 mL of the stock solution in 10 mL (i.e., 10 g for the total weight of the composition), this gives 0.000005 g in 10 mL. which is 0.00005 wt/v % for the silver-DTPA (instant anti-microbial compound). Such amount teaches instant range up to 5 wt/v% for the amount of anti-microbial compound. (ii) With respect to the amount for the titanium dioxide, as discussed above, Nayak teaches the use of the compound in the amount of 0-10 wt.%, which gives 0-10 wt/v % (since the density of the composition is close to 1 g/mL) for the titanium dioxide (instant carrier particles). Such range teaches instant range up to 30 wt/v% for the amount of carrier particle. (iii) With respect to the amount for the cellulose ether, as discussed above, there is 0.5 wt.% of cellulose ether in 5 g of Nayak’s fatty acid soap composition of Table 2, which gives 0.25 wt/v % for the cellulose ether (instant binder polymer). Such amount teaches instant range up to 5 wt/v % for the amount of binder polymer. (iv) With respect to the amount for instant excipient mix (i.e., Nayak’s ALS plus the rest of the compounds (other than the cellulose ether) contained in the fatty acid soap composition), since there is 3 mL of 10% ALS, this gives 3 wt/v % of ALS, and since there is 99.5 wt.% of fatty acid soap composition (without the cellulose ether) in 5 g of the fatty acid soap composition, this gives 49.75 wt/v % for the fatty acid soap composition (without cellulose ether) in the total composition. This means that there is 52.75 wt/v % of instant excipient mix. Such amount does not meet instant range “up to 50 wt/v %” for the amount of instant excipient mix. However, in [0043], Nayak teaches that its fatty acid soap (composition) can be present in its antimicrobial cleansing composition in the amount from 1 to 85 wt.%. Since there is 3 wt/v% of ALS and 0.75 wt/v% to 84.75 wt/v% of fatty acid soap composition (without the cellulose ether which is present in the amount of 0.25 wt./v%), this means that the combination of ALS and the fatty acid soap composition (without the cellulose ether) (instant excipient mix) can be present in the range of from 3.75 wt/v% to 87.75 wt/v%. Such range overlaps with instant range of up to 50 wt/v% for the amount of the excipient mixture, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In the case “where the [claimed] ranges overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness would exist which may be overcome by a showing of unexpected results, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Thus, Nayak renders obvious instant claims 1-3 and 8.
With respect to instant claim 9, Nayak teaches ([0057] and [0059]) that its compositions can further include exfoliating particles, such as silica (instant silicon dioxide). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to further include silica in Nayak’s composition of Examples 1 and 5 with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Nayak renders obvious instant claim 9.
With respect to instant claim 4, although Nayak’s cellulose ether (as included in the fatty acid soap composition of Table 2) does not teach instant binder polymer of claim 4, Nayak teaches ([0055]) the equivalence of sodium carboxymethylcellulose and cellulose ether compounds (such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl cellulose and ethyl cellulose). Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use sodium carboxymethylcellulose (instead of the cellulose ether) in Nayak’s fatty acid soap composition of Table 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Nayak renders obvious instant claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAYAK et al (US 2018/0303086 A1) in view of Abduraimova et al (“Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB)-Loaded SiO2-Ag Mesoporous Nanocomposite as an Efficient Antibacterial Agent”, Nanomaterials (Basel), Feb. 13, 2021, vol.11(2): 477).
With respect to instant claims 5 and 6, as discussed above, Nayak’s composition in Examples 1 and 5 contains ammonium lauryl sulphate (ALS) (instant anionic detergent). Nayak does not teach the use of instant cationic detergent in its composition. However, Nayak teaches ([0013]) that one of the objects of its invention is to provide an antimicrobial composition that is highly effective against a broad spectrum of gram positive and gram negative bacteria and teaches ([0002]) that achieving biocidal activities against gram positive bacteria is especially problematic. Abduraimova teaches (see abstract) that silver nanoparticles attached on the surface of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles provides highly efficient antibacterial activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial strains. Abduraimova further teaches (pg.7, 2nd paragraph) that the synergistic action of the CTAB and silver results in improved antibacterial properties of the nanocomposite. As discussed above, Nayak’s antimicrobial composition of Examples 1 and 5 already contains silver-DTPA powder, and Nayak also teaches ([0057] and [0059]) the use of silica in its composition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further include CTAB in Nayak’s antimicrobial composition containing the silver powder and silica with a reasonable expectation of achieving the synergistic effect of CTAB and silver in providing highly efficient antibacterial activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial strains. Thus, Nayak in view of Abduraimova renders obvious instant claims 5 and 6.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAYAK et al (US 2018/0303086 A1) in view of Abduraimova et al (“Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB)-Loaded SiO2-Ag Mesoporous Nanocomposite as an Efficient Antibacterial Agent”, Nanomaterials (Basel), Feb. 13, 2021, vol.11(2): 477) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Frantz et al (US 2003/0190302 A1).
With respect to instant claim 7, Nayak in view of Abduraimova does not teach instant ratio of cationic to anionic detergent. Frantz teaches (abstract and [0032]) that aqueous free-flowing stable surfactant compositions having non-Newtonian shear thinning properties can be obtained by including both cationic (such as CTAB - see Table I in [0045]) and anionic surfactants. These stable surfactant compositions can suspend water insoluble particles or partially insoluble components. Frantz further teaches ([0037]-[0038]) that the anionic surfactants can be used in the amount of 1-30 wt.% and that the cationic surfactants can be used in the amount of 0.1-20 wt.%. This give a ratio of the cationic surfactant to the anionic surfactant to be 0.1:30 to 20:1 (such range overlaps with instant range 4:7 to 2:3, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use CTAB (cationic surfactant) and ALS (anionic surfactant) together in Nayak’s composition of Example 1 and 5 in the ratio of 0.1:30 to 20:1 with a reasonable expectation of achieving stable cleansing composition that is capable of suspending the water insoluble particles (including the silver compound, titanium dioxide and silica) in the aqueous antimicrobial cleansing composition. Thus, Nayak in view of Abduraimova and Frantz renders obvious instant claim 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIN J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1333. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Kwon can be reached on 571-272-0581. 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).
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.
/SIN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
February 7, 2026