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 .
In view of applicant’s argument, previous 112(b) rejection on claims 8-9 is hereby withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s argument that in Nayak, TiO2 is a mere cosmetic additive and not carrier particles that provide a ceramic matrix for the antimicrobial compound, previous 103 rejections over Nayak et al’086 are hereby withdrawn. Thus, applicant’s argument with respect to the previous 103 rejections is now moot.
Due to newly found prior art(s), the following rejections are made non-final.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, applicant need to change “and” to --- or --- (unless applicant meant that the anti-microbial compound contains at least one of each of the compounds listed in claim 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2, applicant need to change “and” to --- or --- (unless applicant meant that the carrier particles are photocatalytic agents including at least one of each of the compounds listed in claim 3). 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 --- (unless applicant meant that the binder polymer contains at least one of each of the polymers listed in claim 4). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: (i) on line 2, applicant need to change “cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, chloride,” to --- cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, cetyltrimethylammonium chloride, ---. Appropriate correction is required; (ii) on line 4, applicant need to change “and” to --- or --- (unless applicant meant that the excipient mix includes at least one of each of the compounds listed in claim 6). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4, applicant need to change “and” to --- or --- (unless applicant meant that the anti-microbial compound contains at least one of each of the compounds listed in claim 8). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagotto Simoes et al (US 2014/0220153 A1) in view of (i) Smith et al (WO 2018/132823 A1) or Li et al (US 2005/0187124 A1), (ii) Caswell (CA 1,324,702 C) or Hernandez Herrero et al (CA 3 079 303 A1) and Mehreteab et al (5,441,541).
Pagotto Simoes teaches (see abstract, [0101], [0102], [0079] and claims 111-112 and 114) an antimicrobial composition (in the form of a particle) comprising (i) a matrix material and (ii) silver and zinc, both of which are distributed throughout the matrix material, wherein the matrix material comprises at least one of SiO2, TiO2, ZrO2, Al2O3 or Zeolite. Pagotto Simoes teaches ([0104] that at least a portion of the silver or zinc is embedded within the matrix material.
More specifically, Pagotto Simoes teaches ([0137]-[0143]) a composition comprising: SiO2 (as the matrix material) in the amount that ranges from 92% to 99.92%; Ag in the amount that ranges from 0.5% to 5%; and Zn in the amount that ranges from 0.3% to 3% (the percentage being based on Pagotto Simoes’s inventive antimicrobial composition). Pagotto Simones’s SiO2 teaches instant carrier particles providing a ceramic matrix for the anti-microbial compound, and its Ag and Zn both teach instant anti-microbial compound. Pagotto Simoes also teaches ([0085]-[0086]) an antimicrobial liquid cleaning composition comprising its inventive antimicrobial composition discussed above and teaches that the cleaning solution can be an aqueous solution. Pagotto Simoes further teaches ([0087]) that such cleaning composition can be used to clean any type of surface, including textiles (instant porous substrates). Thus, Pagotto Simoes teaches instant aqueous disinfectant and sanitizer composition for porous substrates which contains instant antimicrobial compound and instant carrier particles providing a ceramic matrix for the antimicrobial compound.
With respect to instant range up to 5%wt/v for the amount of the anti-microbial compound and instant range up to 30% wt/v for the amount of the carrier particles, even though Pagotto Simoes teaches that SiO2 (the matrix material) is present in the amount that ranges from 92% to 99.92%, Ag is present in the amount that ranges from 0.5% to 5%, and Zn is present in the amount that ranges from 0.3% to 3%, such percentages are based on Pagotto Simoes’s inventive antimicrobial composition, and the reference does not teach percentages of SiO2, Ag and Zn that are based on its liquid (aqueous) cleaning composition (which comprises its inventive antimicrobial composition). However, as evidenced by Smith ([0069] and [0080]) or Li ([0031], claims 43-44 and 52-53), it is known in the art that antimicrobial agent (such as zinc or silver) is used in an aqueous cleaning composition in the amount that ranges from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% or from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% based on the weight of the aqueous cleaning composition. Assuming that Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition contains its inventive antimicrobial composition in the amount of 0.1-10 wt.% (as taught by Smith or Li) based on the total weight of the aqueous cleaning composition, this would give 0.092 – 9.992 wt.% for the amount of SiO2 (instant carrier particles, which are instant photocatalytic agents of claim 3 including silica) present the aqueous cleaning composition; 0.0005 – 0.5 wt.% for the amount of Ag (instant antimicrobial compound) present in the aqueous cleaning composition; and 0.0003 – 0.3 wt.% for the amount of Zn (instant antimicrobial compound) present in the aqueous cleaning composition, as calculated by the Examiner. The range 0.092-9.992 wt.% for the amount of SiO2 ((instant carrier particles) present in Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition overlaps with instant range up to 30% wt/v for the amount of the carrier particles present in instant aqueous disinfectant and sanitizer composition, and the range 0.0008 – 0.8 wt.% for the total amounts of Ag and Zn (instant antimicrobial compounds) present in Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition overlaps with instant range up to 5% wt/v for the amount of the antimicrobial compound present in instant aqueous disinfectant and sanitizer composition, thus rendering instant ranges prima facie obvious. In the case “where the claimed] ranges overlap or lie inside ranges 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).
Pagotto Simoes does not explicitly teach the use of instant binder polymer, which is present in the amount of up to 5% wt/v, in its liquid (aqueous) cleaning composition. As evidenced by Caswell (pg.40, last paragraph and pg.41, lines 1-27) or Hernandez Herrero (pg.9, lines 29-31, pg.10, lines 1-2) , it is well known in the art that liquid (aqueous) compositions (e.g., a liquid fabric care composition) contain a suspending agent, such as carboxymethyl cellulose, to maintain the insoluble particles uniformly dispersed in the liquid medium and to prevent eventual agglomeration and settlement of the dispersed particles in the liquid medium. Furthermore, Smith (the reference discussed above for teaching the use of an antimicrobial agent (silver) in the amount that ranges from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% in an aqueous cleaning composition) also teaches ([0082]) the use of a suspending agent, such as carboxymethylcellulose, in the amount that ranges from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% based on the total weight of the aqueous cleaning composition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use about 0.01 wt.% - about 10 wt.% of carboxymethylcellulose (instant binder polymer of claim 4) as a suspending agent in Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition with a reasonable expectation of maintaining the insoluble particles (i.e., Ag and Zn, which are distributed throughout the matrix material comprising SiO2) uniformly dispersed in the aqueous medium and preventing eventual agglomeration and settlement of the dispersed particles in the aqueous medium. The range taught by Smith (about 0.01 wt.% - about 10 wt.%) for the amount of the suspending agent (carboxymethylcellulose) overlaps with instant range up to 5% wt/v for the amount of the binder polymer, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, Pagotto Simoes in view of (Caswell or Hernandez Herrero) and Smith renders obvious the use of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (instant binder polymer of claim 4) in the amount of up to 5% wt/v.
Pagotto Simoes does not explicitly teach the use of instant excipient mix in the amount of up to 50% wt/v in its aqueous cleaning composition. Mehreteab teaches (abstract, col.1, lines 9-13) that complexes of anionic and cationic surfactants have been found to remove oily stains from fabrics remarkably better than either the cationic or anionic surfactant from which they are formed. Thus, Mehreteab teaches (col.8, lines 65-68, col.9, lines 1-3 and col.16, lines 31-32) an aqueous solution of a detersively effective amount (about 30 wt.% based on the weight of the aqueous solution) of a water-soluble mixture of at least one anionic surfactant and at least one cationic surfactant which is useful for removing oily soils from fabrics. Mehreteab’s cationic surfactant has the following formula (see col.11, lines 67-68, col.12, lines 1-32):
PNG
media_image1.png
139
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is most preferably an alkyl group of 14-18 carbon atoms (col.12, lines 23-25), R2 is most preferably methyl (col.12, lines 25-26), R3 and R4 are most preferably methyl or -(C2H4O)n-H (n being 5-15) (col.12, lines 26-29), and X- is chloride, iodide, or bromide, sulfate, acetate, hydroxide, methosulfate, or ethosulfate (col.12, lines 29-31). Mehreteab specifically uses tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide in its working example (see Experiment I) as its cationic surfactant of formula (I). Mehreteab’s anionic surfactants include the sulfates of the formula (II) shown below (see col.12, lines 33-66):
PNG
media_image2.png
30
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R6 can be R9-O-(R5O5)m’-, in which R9 is preferably an alkyl or alkenyl group of 10-20 carbon atoms, R5 is an alkylene group of 2-4 carbon atoms, and m’ is preferably 0-20, and M is a water-soluble cation. Based on Mehreteab’s teaching, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use a mixture of its cationic surfactant of formula (I) (as discussed above) and its anionic surfactant of formula (II) (as discussed above) in Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition in the amount of about 30 wt.% based on the weight of the aqueous cleaning composition with a reasonable expectation of removing oily soils from fabrics (textiles). Mehreteab’s range about 30 wt.% overlaps with instant range up to 50% wt/v, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, Pagotto Simoes in view of Mehreteab renders obvious the use of instant excipient mix in the amount of up to 50% wt/v.
Thus, Pagotto Simoes in view of (i) Smith or Li, (ii) Caswell or Hernandez Herrero and (iii) Mehreteab renders obvious instant claims 1-5.
With respect to instant claim 6, as already discussed above, Mehreteab’s teaching renders it obvious to use a mixture of its cationic surfactant of formula (I) (as discussed above) and its anionic surfactant of formula (II) (as discussed above) in Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition so as to remove oily soils from fabrics (textiles). As also discussed above, Mehreteab specifically uses tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide in its working example as its cationic surfactant of formula (I). Although tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide does not teach instant cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, Mehreteab teaches the equivalence of tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide and instant cetyltrimethylammonium bromide. That is, as discussed above, in Mehreteab’s cationic surfactant of formula (I) shown above, R1 is most preferably an alkyl group of 14-18 carbon atoms. Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled to replace the tetradecyl group (an alkyl group of 14 carbon atoms) as in tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide with a cetyl group (an alkyl group of 16 carbon atoms) to obtain cetyltrimethylammonium bromide. Thus, Mehreteab’s teaching renders it obvious to use a mixture of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (as the cationic surfactant of formula (I)) and the anionic surfactant of formula (II) (as discussed above) in Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition with a reasonable expectation of removing oily soils from fabrics (textiles). Thus, Pagotto Simoes in view of (i) Smith or Li, (ii) Caswell or Hernandez Herrero and (iii) Mehreteab renders obvious instant claim 6.
With respect to instant claim 7, Mehreteab teaches (col.16, lines 35-42) that enhanced cleaning performance for many types of soils and fabrics can be obtained when the molar ratio of anionic to cationic surfactant ranges from about 3:1 to 1:3, which means that the molar ratio of cationic to anionic surfactant ranges from about 1:3 to 3:1, which translates to from about 0.33 to 3. Such range overlaps with instant range 4:7 to 2:3, which translates to 0.57 to 0.67, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, Pagotto Simoes in view of (i) Smith or Li, (ii) Caswell or Hernandez Herrero and (iii) Mehreteab renders obvious instant claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagotto Simoes et al (US 2014/0220153 A1) in view of (i) Smith et al (WO 2018/132823 A1) or Li et al (US 2005/0187124 A1), (ii) Caswell (CA 1,324,702 C) or Hernandez Herrero et al (CA 3 079 303 A1) and Mehreteab et al (5,441,541), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niraula et al (“Sodium dodecylsulphate: A very useful Surfactant for Scientific Investigations”, The Journal of Knowledge and Innovation, vol.2(1) (February 2014), pg.111-113).
With respect to instant claims 8 and 9, as discussed above, Mehreteab’s anionic surfactants include the sulfates of the formula (II) shown below
PNG
media_image2.png
30
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R6 can be R9-O-(R5O5)m’-, in which R9 is preferably an alkyl or alkenyl group of 10-20 carbon atoms, R5 is an alkylene group of 2-4 carbon atoms, and m’ is preferably 0-20, and M is a water-soluble cation. Furthermore, as evidenced by Niraula (see pg.112, left-hand column, 2nd paragraph), it is known in the art that sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS), also referred to as sodium laurylsulfate (SLS), is mainly used in detergents for laundry with many cleaning applications. It is known as a highly effective surfactant and is used in any task requiring the removal of oily stains and residues due to its ability to suspend soil particles in such a way so that they can easily be washed away. Sodium dodecylsulfate also meets Mehreteab’s anionic surfactant of formula (II) shown above (with R6 being R9-O-(R5O5)m’-, in which R9 is an alkyl group of 12 carbon atoms, and m’ is 0, and M is sodium). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use sodium dodecylsulfate (instant strong anionic detergent of instant claim 9 – see [0036] of present specification) as Mehreteab’s anionic surfactant of formula (II) in Pagotto Simoes’s aqueous cleaning composition with a reasonable expectation of effectively removing oily stains and residues from textiles or fabric. Thus, Pagotto Simoes in view of (i) Smith or Li, (ii) Caswell or Hernandez Herrero and (iii) Mehreteab, and further in view of (iv) Niraula renders obvious instants claims 8 and 9.
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
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights