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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending (claim set as filed on 8/20/2026). Claims 19-20 are withdrawn due to a restriction/election requirement. Claims 1-18 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/20/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of the species citric acid or a salt thereof and fabric softening materials in the reply filed on 8/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of the applicant’s claim for priority benefit to provisional application no. 63/440,709 filed on 1/24/2023, and thus the effective filing date of this application is 1/24/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024 and 7/3/2025 were considered, initialed, and attached hereto. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the terms “TAEGRO®”, “RHAPSODY®”, “SERENADE®”, “Freshen Free™”, “Evogen®”, “Evozyme®”, “VWR Chemicals BDH®” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 5-7 and 15 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.
Claims 5-7 recite the term “first sulfur-containing compound” which renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear if a second sulfur-containing compound is present as well and what distinguishes the first compound from any other compound present if not.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molinaro (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2011/0207649 A1– date of publication 8/25/2011), in view of Salminen (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018 / 0343861 A1 – date of publication 12/6/2018), further in view of Espina (Espina et al., “Potential use of carvacrol and citral to inactivate biofilm cells and eliminate biofouling”, 2017 Jul 5, Food Control, 82, pgs. 256-265), and as evidenced by Packaging World (Packaging World, “Airspray Intl.: Pump foamers”, 2002 Nov 30, www.packworld.com/industries/other-packaged-goods/detergents-cleaners/product/13336360/airspray-intl-pump-foamers, accessed 2026 Sep 24).
Molinaro’s general disclosure relates to an antimicrobial cleaning composition comprising bacterial spores (see abstract) for application to surfaces such as food processing and/or preparation establishments, kitchens, restaurants, and similar facilities (see [0007] and [0013]).
Regarding claim 1, Molinaro teaches an antimicrobial surface cleaning composition comprising a citric acid organic acid sequestrant at a range of about 5-50 wt% of the composition (see [0212-0213] and [0216]), and which fully encompasses the claimed range of about 10-50 wt%. Molinaro teaches the surface cleaning composition comprises bacterial spores from a Bacillus spp. (see [0036-0037]) at a concentration of about 1x103-1x109 CFU/mL (see [0043]); and as the instant specification does not define the term “about”, the prior art range reads on the claimed range of about 1x102-1x109 CFU/mL. Molinaro teaches the surface cleaning composition comprises a fragrance and further comprises soft water at values spanning a range of 57-70 wt%, which overlap with the claimed range of 30-90% (see pg. 31 – Example 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
144
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
215
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Molinaro teaches the surface cleaning composition can further comprise a blended surfactant at a concentration of about 0.003-70 wt% (see [0100]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 10 wt% or less.
Molinaro does not teach that the pH of the surface cleaning composition was about 2-4 or that the fragrance comprises aldehydic perfume raw materials.
Salminen’s general disclosure relates to an acid-anionic surfactant formula at a pH of 1.2-5.0 (see [0013-0014]) which acts as an antimicrobial surface cleaning agent against food-borne bacteria by cleaning food contact surfaces (see [0010] and abstract). Regarding claim 1, Salminen teaches an antimicrobial surface cleaner solution comprising an anionic surfactant at a pH of about 1.2-5.0 (see [0013-0014]). As the claimed range is “about 2 to about 4” and the instant specification does not provide a definition of the meaning of “about”, the prior art range is deemed to fully encompass the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the acidic pH range as taught in Salminen to the antimicrobial surface cleaning composition as taught in Molinaro. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so because Salminen teaches the low pH of an anionic surfactant allows the formula to be effective against microorganisms such as food-borne bacteria (see Salminen [0010] and [0014]). Therefore, one could build off Salminen’s teachings to manipulate the pH lower to improve upon the antimicrobial properties of the surface cleaning composition disclosed in Molinaro which also comprises an anionic surfactant (see Molinaro [0098]). Furthermore, Molinaro also teaches the pH of the solution can be adjusted downwards as needed for the cleaning agents present to enhance the cleaning effect (see Molinaro [0246]).
Espina’s general disclosure relates to the antimicrobial properties of the essential oil cleaning agent citral against microbes such as Staphylococcus aureus (see abstract) to prevent biofilm formation on food contact surfaces (see pg. 264, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 1, Espina teaches the use of a citral essential oil as a cleaning agent to remove biofilms from surfaces (see Espina pg. 262, ¶ 1). As noted in the instant specification, suitable aldehydic perfume raw materials can include citral (see specification pg. 12, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the citral oil as taught in Espina to the cleaning composition as taught in Molinaro. One would have been motivated to do so because Espina teaches that citral is effective at reducing Staphylococcus aureus biofilms (see Espina pg. 264, ¶ 2). This would be an advantageous addition to Molinaro’s disclosure which measures the antimicrobial effect of their surface cleaning composition specifically against Staphylococcus aureus (see Molinaro pg. 32 – Table 5). As such, the ordinary artisan could have improved upon Molinaro’s invention by adding the antimicrobial citral to the composition and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claims 2-4, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises a citric acid sequestrant at a range of about 5-50 wt% of the composition (see Molinaro [0212-0213]) which encompasses the claimed range of 12-40 wt% and 15-30 wt%.
Regarding claims 5-6, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises a hydrotropic agent such as an alkali metal salt of sulfonated alkylaryls (see Molinaro [0209] and [0211]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition can comprise a sulfur-containing compound of sodium bisulfate (see Salminen [0018]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references teach that the citral oil was prepared at a concentration range of 50-5000 µL/L (see Espina pg. 257, ¶ 8) which calculates to 0.0044-0.44 wt%. When divided by the wt% of the fragrance, which is 0.4 wt% (see Molinaro pg. 31 – Example 9), the overall wt% of citral in the fragrance calculates to 1-100% which overlaps with the claimed range of about 10-50%.
Regarding claim 9, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprised a fragrance at values spanning a range of 0.1-0.4 wt% (see Molinaro pg. 31 – Example 9) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2-5%.
Regarding claim 10, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises soft water at values spanning a range of 57-70 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 60-85% (see Molinaro pg. 31 – Example 9).
Regarding claim 11, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises a fabric softener of quaternary ammonium compounds (see Molinaro [0091]) at a range of 0.1-90 wt% (see Molinaro [0096]) which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1% or less. The instant specification notes the fabric softening materials may include quaternary ammonium compounds (see specification pg. 15, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition can comprise a blended surfactant which comprises a nonionic surfactant at a concentration of about 0.003-70 wt% (see Molinaro [0100]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1-5 wt%.
Regarding claim 13, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition has a pH range of 1.2-5.0 (see Salminen [0013-0014) which fully encompasses the claimed pH range of 2.3 to 3.7.
Regarding claim 14, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition further comprises a dye.
However, the combined references do not teach the dye was present at 1% or less in the composition.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to optimize the dye as taught in the combined references to 1% or less as claimed. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so because the combined references teach the dye can advantageously provide a visual indicator of the product in a package (see Molinaro [0250]). As such, it would have simply been a matter of routine experimentation to optimize the dye concentration to a percentage that provided the desired color intensity to best visualize the surface cleaner end product.
Regarding claim 15, the combined references xanthan gum in the amount of 0.1-5 wt% (see [0249]) within the surface cleaner composition to thicken it and since it calculates to a viscosity of 15-1000 cps, the end product would have a similar viscosity as claimed. Furthermore, it would be obvious to manipulate the viscosity of the surface cleaner composition end product based on the desired intended use of the composition, such as a spray versus a gel composition. Regarding the steps performed to arrive at the claimed structure, these are considered to be product-by-process limitations. In product-by-process claims, the patentability of the product is dependent on the end product itself, not the process steps per se. The process steps are only considered when they are expected to impart distinct structural characteristics to the final product. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 16, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises glacial acetic acid, also referred to as vinegar, at a concentration of 1 wt% or less in the composition (see Molinaro pg. 31 – Example 9), which not 2.80%.
Regarding claim 17, the combined references teach an antimicrobial surface cleaning composition comprising a citric acid organic acid sequestrant at a range of about 5-50 wt% of the composition (see Molinaro [0212-0213] and [0216]), and which fully encompasses the claimed range of about 15-35 wt%. The combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises bacterial spores from a Bacillus spp. (see Molinaro [0036-0037]) at a concentration of about 1x103-1x109 CFU/mL (see Molinaro [0043]) which fully encompasses the claimed range of 1x103-1x108 CFU/mL. The combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises a fragrance at values spanning a range of 0.1-0.4 wt% (see Molinaro pg. 31 – Example 9) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1-5%. The combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises a blended surfactant which comprises a nonionic surfactant at a concentration of about 0.003-70 wt% (see Molinaro [0100]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1-5 wt%. The combined references further teach the surface cleaning composition comprises soft water at values spanning a range of 57-70 wt%, which overlap with the claimed range of 30-90% (see Molinaro pg. 31 – Example 9). The combined references teach the surface cleaning composition comprises a fabric softener of quaternary ammonium compounds (see Molinaro [0091]) at a range of 0.1-90 wt% (see Molinaro [0096]) which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 5%. The instant specification notes the fabric softening materials may include quaternary ammonium compounds (see specification pg. 15, ¶ 1).Regarding claim 18, the combined references teach the surface cleaning composition can be used in a foaming solution using a mechanical foam head as commercially distributed by Airspray International, Inc (see Molinaro [0257]). As evidenced by Packing World, the aforementioned mechanical foam dispenser is transparent (see Packing World pg. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
547
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molinaro (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2011/0207649 A1– date of publication 8/25/2011), in view of Salminen (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018 / 0343861 A1 – date of publication 12/6/2018), in view of Espina (Espina et al., “Potential use of carvacrol and citral to inactivate biofilm cells and eliminate biofouling”, 2017 Jul 5, Food Control, 82, pgs. 256-265), and further in view of Clean Mama (Clean Mama, “Glass Spray Bottles: What’s the Big Deal?”, 2018 Nov 19, https://cleanmama.com/glass-spray-bottles-whats-the-big-deal/, accessed 2026 Sep 24).
The general disclosure of the combined references has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, the combined references teach the antimicrobial surface cleaner composition (see Molinaro [0212-0213], [0216], [0036-0037], [0100] and pg. 31 – Example 9).
However, the combined references do not teach that the composition is packaged in a transparent or translucent container.
Clean Mama’s general disclosure relates to the benefits of using transparent glass containers for storing surface cleaning products as they do not react with certain ingredients such as essential oils (see pg. 3, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 18, Clean Mama teaches a surface cleaning solution packaged in a transparent glass spray bottle (see pg. 3, ¶ 2 and pgs. 7-8).
PNG
media_image4.png
326
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the transparent glass bottle as taught in Clean Mama in the surface cleaning composition as taught by the combined references. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so because Clean Mama teaches the glass bottle does not react with cleaning ingredients or essential oils (see Clean Mama pg. 3, ¶ 2). Thus this would be an advantage to the disclosure of the combined references which uses the essential oil derivative citral (see Espina abstract) in the surface cleaning composition and by using a clear glass bottle to store the product, the integrity of the citral ingredient would remain unaffected.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmalee R. Williams whose telephone number is (571)272-5472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/EMMALEE R WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights