DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 21-40 are newly added, pending, and under consideration in this action. Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
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 21 and 37 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.
With regards to Claim 21, the limitation “wherein a use solution of the solid composition has a pH of less than about 4 and is non-flammable” is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation is merely directed to an intended use of the claimed “solid antimicrobial and/or virucidal composition”, or if the limitation is intended to impart or imply structural limitations onto the claimed solid antimicrobial and/or virucidal composition itself.
With regards to Claim 37, the claim recites “[t]he composition of claim 28”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation as claim 28 is directed to a method claim, not a composition.
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.
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.
Claims 21, 23-32, 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (Taylor) (US 2008/0145390 A1; published Jun. 19, 2008).
Taylor discloses a method and article for providing a rapid and a persistent control of viruses, and a rapid, broad-spectrum control of bacteria, on an animate or inanimate surface (para.0002). The method of controlling viruses and bacteria on surfaces is by applying a composition to the surface that is capable of providing a surface pH of less than about 4, for a period of about four or more hours, without irritation or corrosion of the surface (para.0002). The method controls Gram positive and Gram negative bacterial populations, and viral populations, within one minute, and provides a persistent antiviral control for about four hours or more (para.0002).
With regards to Claims 21, 23, 24, and 26, Taylor discloses a nonvolatile composition used to treat a surface to impart a persistent antiviral activity to the treated surface (para.0052).
The composition comprises an organic acid in a sufficient amount to reduce a surface pH to less than about 4 and thereby control and inactivate bacteria and viruses on a surface contacted by the organic acid. The organic acid helps provide a rapid control of acid-labile viruses, and provides a persistent viral control (para.0099). The organic acid has a pKa of about 1 to about 6 and preferably about 2 to about 5.5. To achieve a full advantage, the organic acid has a pKa of about 2.5 to about 5. Such organic acids have a sufficient acid strength to reduce a surface pH to less than about 4. Preferably, the organic acid is substantive to the treated surface to enhance the persistent antimicrobial properties (para.0102). Typically, an organic acid is included in a composition in an amount of about 0.05% to about 15%. To achieve the full advantage of the invention, the organic acid is present in a composition in an amount of about 0.15 to about 6% by weight of the composition (para.0103). In a preferred embodiment, the organic acid comprises one or more polycarboxylic acids, e.g., tartaric acid, malic acid, and/or citric acid (para.0126; Taylor claims 1, 8, 26, 27).
The composition further includes an inorganic acid that is noncorrosive to the surface. The inorganic acid typically is present in a composition for application to the surface in an amount of about 0.05% to about 15%. To achieve the full advantage of the invention, the inorganic acid is present in an amount of about 0.15% to about 5% by weight of the composition (para.0127). Among the suitable inorganic acids include phosphoric acid (para.0128; Taylor claim 23).
A surfactant can be included in a composition for lowering surface, and particular skin, pH in an amount of typically 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the composition (para.0177). The surfactant can be an anionic surfactant having a hydrophobic moiety, such as a carbon chain including about 8 to about 30 carbons, and particularly about 12 to about 20 carbon atoms, and further has a hydrophilic moiety, such as a sulfate, sulfonate, or carboxylate (para.0178).
The composition may be in the form of solid product forms, such as powder, flake, tablet, pellet, lozenge, puck, briquette, brick, solid block, unit dose, or a similar solid product form known in the art (para.0307).
The compositions can be manufactured as dilute ready-to-use compositions (reading on use solution of the solid antimicrobial composition) (para.0307). One particular product form is a solid composition disposed within a water-soluble packet. The packet is added to a proper amount of water and the composition is released when the packet dissolves (para.0308). Another useful product form is a stable, solid block that can be added to water to provide a liquid composition for practicing the present methods (para.0309).
The pH of the antimicrobial composition is less than 5, and preferably less than about 4.5 at 25oC. To achieve the full advantage of the invention, the pH is less than about 4. Typically, the pH of the composition is about 2 to less than about 5, and preferably about 2.5 to about 4.5 (para.0091, 0093, 0216; Taylor claim 29).
Furthermore as discussed above, as the composition is a nonvolatile composition, and the composition is diluted with water to provide a ready-to-use composition, absent evidence to the contrary, the use solution of the solid composition is non-flammable.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to Claim 25, the composition may further comprise a hydrotrope, which may be present in an amount of about 0.1% to about 30%. More preferably, a composition contains about 2% to about 15% by weight of a hydrotrope (para.0199).
With regards to Claim 27, the composition can also contain a cosolvent or a clarifying agent, such as polyethylene glycol (para.0214).
With regards to Claims 28, 30-32, and 38-40, Taylor discloses that the compositions can be manufactured as concentrates that are diluted prior to use (para.0307). The compositions is applied to a surface, and preferably is allowed to remain on the surface, and the nonvolatile components of compositions can form a barrier film (abstract; Taylor claims 1 and 6). The method imparts a persistent antiviral activity to the contacted surface, which is enhanced because of a residual barrier layer or film of the composition ingredients that can remain on the surface after evaporation of the volatile components of the composition (para.0334).
The compositions can be manufactured as dilute ready-to-use compositions (reading on use solution of the solid antimicrobial composition) (para.0307). One particular product form is a solid composition disposed within a water-soluble packet. The packet is added to a proper amount of water and the composition is released when the packet dissolves (para.0308). Another useful product form is a stable, solid block that can be added to water to provide a liquid composition for practicing the present methods (para.0309).
The compositions have a pH of less than about 5 and are capable of forming an essentially continuous film or layer of nonvolatile composition ingredients on a treated surface (para.0091, 0093).
The methods using the compositions achieves a log reduction against nonenveloped viruses of at least 3 for at least about five hours and at least 2 for about six hours, and application with a 30 second contact time (par.0058). Taylor also encompasses methods of treating an inanimate surface, and wherein the inanimate surface has a log reduction against a nonenveloped virus of at least 4 after 30 seconds of contact (Taylor claim 50). Nonenveloped viruses the compositions provide effective and persistent inactivation of nonenveloped viruses include caliciviruses (including Norwalk virus, also known as norovirus, a small, non-enveloped virus). The compositions effectively control and inactivate noroviruses (para.0086).
The method is also mild, and it is not necessary to rinse or wipe the composition from the surface (para.0096).
With regards to Claim 29, the compositions can be applied to a surface by spraying (para.0316).
With regards to Claim 30, a particularly important surface to treat is mammalian skin, and especially human skin, to inactivate and interrupt the transmission of bacteria and viruses. However, the method is also useful in treating other animate surfaces and inanimate surfaces of all types, including food products (para.0313-0316).
With regards to Claim 34, as discussed above, the inorganic acid (e.g., phosphoric acid) typically is present in a composition for application to the surface in an amount of about 0.05% to about 15%. To achieve the full advantage of the invention, the inorganic acid is present in an amount of about 0.15% to about 5% by weight of the composition (about 1500 ppm to 50,000 ppm) (para.0127).
With regards to Claim 35, as discussed above, an organic acid (e.g., tartaric acid, malic acid, and/or citric acid) is included in a composition in an amount of about 0.05% to about 15%. To achieve the full advantage of the invention, the organic acid is present in a composition in an amount of about 0.15 to about 6% by weight of the composition (about 1500 ppm to about 60,000 ppm) (para.0103).
With regards to Claim 36, as discussed above, a surfactant (e.g., anionic surfactant) can be included in a composition for lowering surface, and particular skin, pH in an amount of typically 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the composition (about 1000 ppm to about 10,000 ppm) (para.0177).
Further regarding Claims 34-36, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to engage in routine experimentation to adjust the amount of each ingredient within the art disclosed amount based on art recognized factors such as the extent of the microbial contamination and area to be treated. Where 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With regards to Claim 37, Taylor discloses that the contact temperature can be any temperature, typically room temperature, i.e., about 25oC (about 77 oF) (para.0223).
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the teachings of the prior art reference is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (Taylor) (US 2008/0145390 A1; published Jun. 19, 2008) as applied to Claims 21, 23-32, 34-40 set forth above, further in view of Fuls et al. (Fuls) (US 2007/0274940 A1; published Nov. 29, 2007).
The teachings of Taylor as they apply to Claims 21, 23-32, 34-40 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
Taylor does not appear to explicitly disclose an anionic surfactant from those recited in Claim 22. Fuls is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Fuls are set forth herein below.
Fuls discloses a method of rapid antiviral effectiveness and a persistent antiviral effectiveness (abstract). Fuls discloses that their compositions can include an anionic surfactant having a hydrophobic moiety, such as a carbon chain including about 8 to about 30 carbon atoms, and particularly about 12 to about 20 carbon atoms, and further has a hydrophilic moiety, such as sulfate, sulfonate, or carboxylate (para.0125). Among the suitable anionic surfactants include C8-C18 alkyl sulfonate (para.0127).
With regards to Claim 22, as discussed above, Taylor discloses that the composition may include an anionic surfactant having a hydrophobic moiety, such as a carbon chain including about 8 to about 30 carbons, and particularly about 12 to about 20 carbon atoms, and further has a hydrophilic moiety, such as a sulfate, sulfonate, or carboxylate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Taylor and Fuls and use Fuls’s C8-C18 alkyl sulfonate as the anionic surfactant in Taylor’s antiviral composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Taylor and Fuls are directed to antiviral compositions and both disclose that such compositions may include an anionic surfactant having a hydrophobic moiety, such as a carbon chain including about 8 to about 30 carbons, and particularly about 12 to about 20 carbon atoms, and further has a hydrophilic moiety, such as a sulfate, and Fuls discloses that specific example of such an anionic surfactant suitable for use in antiviral compositions is C8-C18 alkyl sulfonate.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (Taylor) (US 2008/0145390 A1; published Jun. 19, 2008) as applied to Claims 21, 23-32, 34-40 set forth above, further in view of Metzger et al. (Metzger) (US 2013/0217063 A1; published Aug. 22, 2013).
The teachings of Taylor as they apply to Claims 21, 23-32, 34-40 are set forth above and incorporated herein. Additional relevant teachings of Taylor are set forth herein below.
Taylor discloses that it may be desirable to add additional ingredients that enhance the effectiveness of the composition or provide additional benefit, such as a dye to indicate the composition has been properly applied (para.0322).
Taylor does not appear to explicitly disclose employing a sensor and/or indicator to measure and detect as least one feature as recited in Claim 33. Metzger is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Metzger are set forth herein below.
Metzger is directed to rapid microbial detection and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (title; abstract). In order to determine the concentration of microorganisms in a sample, a number of different methods are available. The microorganism can be treated with an absorptive or fluorescent dye, and the total amount of absorption or fluorescence can be used to provide a rough estimate of the number of microorganisms on the surface (para.0138).
With regards to Claim 33, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Taylor and Metzger and either apply an absorptive or fluorescent dye onto the surface to be treated prior to and/or after applying Taylor’s antimicrobial composition, or add an absorptive or fluorescent dye into Taylor’s antimicrobial composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have the advantage of visually identifying the extent of the microbial concentration on the surface to be treated in order to have a more accurate application dosage and only apply the composition as needed, and to visually ensure elimination of microbial contamination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Taylor discloses that dye providing a functional benefit are known to be used with their antimicrobial composition, and Metzger discloses that absorptive or fluorescent dye are known to be used to be able to visually identify the concentration of microorganisms in a particular area.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,602 B2 (USPN 602) in view of Taylor et al. (Taylor) (US 2008/0145390 A1; published Jun. 19, 2008).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping solid antimicrobial compositions with a strong acid (e.g., methane sulfonic acid, phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, and/or sodium bisulfate), a weak acid (e.g., lactic acid, citric acid, and/or maleic acid), and an anionic surfactant (e.g., C8-C22 alkyl sulfonate).
The primary difference between the instant claims and the claims of USPN 602 is that USPN 602 does not appear to explicitly claim a method of using the composition. Taylor is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Taylor are set forth above and incorporated herein.
USPN 602 discloses that an advantage of their compositions is that it is efficacious against microbial pathogens including viruses such as Norovirus (col.3, ln.25-25; col.4, ln.55-62). It is proper to turn to and rely on the disclosure of a patent or a patent application as a dictionary to understand the scope of what is meant by a term in a claim and/or to ascertain what constitutes an obvious modification. This position is supported by the courts. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Taylor with the claims of USPN 602 and use USPN 602’s claimed antimicrobial composition in Taylor’s methods of controlling viruses, e.g., Norovirus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as USPN 602’s claims are directed to an antimicrobial composition, which USPN 602’s disclosure envisions using for controlling viruses such as Norovirus, and Taylor discloses that solid antimicrobial compositions comprising components that overlap with USPN 602’s claimed compositions are known to be used in controlling viruses such as Norovirus.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,950,595 B2 (USPN 595) in view of Taylor et al. (Taylor) (US 2008/0145390 A1; published Jun. 19, 2008).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping methods of using an antimicrobial composition, which have overlapping claimed components (e.g., weak acid, strong acid, and anionic surfactant).
The primary difference between the instant claims and the claims USPN 595 is that the claims of USPN 595 do not appear to explicitly claim wherein the antimicrobial composition used is, or starts as, a solid composition. Taylor is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Taylor are set forth above and incorporated herein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Taylor with the claims of USPN 595 and formulate the antimicrobial composition as a solid composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Taylor discloses that antimicrobial compositions having the components such as those in USPN 595 are known to be formulated as a solid composition, which may be later mixed with water to formulate a ready-to-use formulation. Providing a solid formulation would also provide benefits such as reducing bulk during storage and allowing for making the formulation as needed at the concentration needed.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-14, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,026,422 B2 (USPN 422) in view of Taylor et al. (Taylor) (US 2008/0145390 A1; published Jun. 19, 2008).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping methods of using an antimicrobial composition, which have overlapping claimed components (e.g., weak acid, strong acid, and anionic surfactant).
The primary difference between the instant claims and the claims USPN 422 is that the claims of USPN 422 do not appear to explicitly claim wherein the antimicrobial composition used is, or starts as, a solid composition. Taylor is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Taylor are set forth above and incorporated herein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Taylor with the claims of USPN 422 and formulate the antimicrobial composition as a solid composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Taylor discloses that antimicrobial compositions having the ingredients such as those in USPN 422 are known to be formulated as a solid composition, which may be later mixed with water to formulate a ready-to-use formulation. Providing a solid formulation would also provide benefits such as reducing bulk during storage and allowing for making the formulation as needed at the concentration needed.
Claims 21-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/624,443 (Copending 443) in view of Taylor et al. (Taylor) (US 2008/0145390 A1; published Jun. 19, 2008).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping antimicrobial compositions with a strong acid (e.g., methane sulfonic acid), a weak acid (e.g., citric acid, and/or maleic acid), and an anionic surfactant (e.g., alkyl sulfonate).
The primary difference between the instant claims and the claims of Copending 443 is that Copending 443 does not appear to explicitly claim a method of using the composition or wherein the composition is a solid composition. Taylor is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Taylor are set forth above and incorporated herein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Taylor with the claims of Copending 443 and use Copending 443’s claimed antimicrobial composition in Taylor’s methods of controlling viruses, e.g., Norovirus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Copending 443’s claims are directed to an antimicrobial composition with virucidal efficacy, and Taylor discloses that antimicrobial compositions comprising components that overlap with Copending 443’s claimed compositions are known to be used in controlling viruses such as Norovirus.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Taylor with the claims of Copending 443 and formulate the antimicrobial composition as a solid composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Taylor discloses that antimicrobial compositions having the ingredients such as those in Copending 443 are known to be formulated as a solid composition, which may be later mixed with water to formulate a ready-to-use formulation. Providing a solid formulation would also provide benefits such as reducing bulk during storage and allowing for making the formulation as needed at the concentration needed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 21-40 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights