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
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 01/29/26, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0176986A1) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 2016/0176814A1); as evidenced by Hazenkamp et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0058005A1).
Hanson et al. discloses virucidal (antimicrobial) compositions and methods, see title and abstract. Hanson et al. teaches that the antimicrobial composition comprises at least one weak acid, at least one strong acid and/or a combination thereof; at least one alpha olefin sulfonate, anionic sulfonate and water for liquid compositions, wherein the composition is a liquid or solid concentrate having an acidic pH at use composition from about 1.5 to about 4, see [0018]. Hanson teaches that the microorganism refers to bacteria, spores, fungi, viruses and algae, see [0037]. In paragraph [0035], the reference teaches that the antimicrobial composition is suitable for the “cidal” activity against viral pathogens including use of EN14476 at 18 degrees Celsius -25 degrees Celsius (under clean or dirty conditions).
Hanson teaches use of weak acid as formic acid in paragraph [0078] and strong acid, methane sulfonic acid in [0077].
Hanson teaches use of anionic surfactants such as C8-C22 alpha olefin sulfonates and C8-C16 alpha olefin sulfonate, see [0086]. The composition can include two or more anionic surfactants, see [0092]. Hanson also teaches in paragraph [0096], use of anionic surfactants include alkyl or alkylaryl ethoxy carboxylates (claimed as alcohol ether carboxylate in instant claim 6) of the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
282
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hanson teaches the amount of alpha olefin sulfonate in a composition to be ranging from about 0.1 wt.% to about 50 wt. % and teaches that additional anionic surfactants include from about 0.1 to 30 wt. % in a composition, see [0099]. The taught amounts of the two anionic surfactants overlap with the claimed amounts of instant claims 9-11 and thus create a case of obviousness because in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A. Hanson also suggests use of non-ionic and amphoteric surfactants, see [0116].
Hanson teaches the amount of strong acid to be used in a composition ranging from about 0.1 wt.% to about 30 wt. % in paragraph [0081] and the amount of weak acid to be used in the composition ranging from 1 wt.% to about 50 wt. %, see [0082] and [0083]. These amounts overlap with the claimed amounts of the strong and weak acids as claimed in instant claims 9-10 and thus create a case of obviousness because in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
Hanson does not teach the use of fatty acid ester glycerides in the antimicrobial composition as claimed in instant claims 1.
Balasubramanian et al. while disclosing a disinfectant/antimicrobial composition, teaches use of formic acid in a composition wherein it is in the peroxy form, see [0051], [0065] and [0235]. The reference teaches that microorganisms refer to bacteria, spores, fungi and viruses, see [0056]. The reference teaches additional functional ingredients can be added including surfactants and/or antimicrobial/biocidal agents for enhanced efficacy, see [0108]. Various surfactants can be used depending upon the cleaning surfaces, see [0149]. The reference teaches use of surfactants in the composition including fatty acid esters such as C6-C24 fatty acid ester ethoxylates, propoxylates or glycerides, see [0153], sorbitan esters, their ethoxylates and polyglycerol fatty acid esters as the preferred ones, see [0152]. The surfactants can range from 0.005% to 5%, see [0159] and this amount overlaps with the claimed amount in instant claims 9-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known surfactants fatty acid esters such as C6-C24 fatty acid ester ethoxylates, propoxylates or glycerides, or sorbitan esters, their ethoxylates or polyglycerol fatty acid esters as taught by Balasubramanian et al. into the antimicrobial composition of Hanson et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Hanson teaches antimicrobial composition in a solid or liquid/aqueous form and suggests use of non-ionic or amphoteric surfactants in the antimicrobial composition to be used in the form of wiping, spraying, dipping and immersing on the surfaces to be disinfected/cleaned and Balasubramaninan et al. while teaching antimicrobial composition, teaches use of various surfactants including C6-C24 fatty acid ester ethoxylates, propoxylates or glycerides, or sorbitan esters, their ethoxylates or polyglycerol fatty acid esters into the antimicrobial composition which can be used depending upon the cleaning surfaces for antimicrobial effects, wherein the composition can be in a liquid or an aqueous from. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a
composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Hanson does not characterize the composition to be yeasticidal as claimed.
However, as evidenced by Hazenkamp et al. the antimicrobial composition taught by Hanson et al. as modified by Balasubramaninan et al. which comprises methane sulfonic acid and formic acid, would be considered to have yeasticidal properties because Hazenkamp et al. teaches that bactericidal and yeasticidal mixtures comprising methane sulfonic acid and formic acid mixture show a full yeasticidal activity, see (example 15) and [0305]. The yeasticidal efficacy on Candida albicans ATCC 10231 of the mixture was tested in a suspension as per European Standard EN 1650:2008. The log reduction was more than 4, see page 11, [0030].
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0176986A1) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 2016/0176814A1) and further in view of Hazenkamp et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0058005A1).
Hanson et al. and Balasubramanian et al. have been discussed above.
The references discussed above teach an antimicrobial composition wherein the microorganism refers to bacteria, spores, fungi, viruses and algae. However, the references do not teach using the disclosed composition effective against the specific fungus, which is yeast as claimed.
Hazenkamp et al. teaches that bactericidal and yeasticidal mixtures comprising methane sulfonic acid and formic acid mixture containing 0.625 wt.-% methanesulfonic acid (MSA) and 2.5 wt.-% formic acid shows a full yeasticidal activity, see (example 15) and [0305]. The yeasticidal efficacy on Candida albicans ATCC 10231 of the mixture was tested in a suspension as per European Standard EN 1650:2008. The contact time was 15 minutes and log reduction was more than 4, see page 11, [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the antimicrobial composition of Hanson et al. as modified by Subramanian et al. comprising weak acid such as formic acid and strong acid such as methane sulfonic acid on a hard surface in need of treatment. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Hanson teaches the use of antimicrobial composition which are microbicidal for bacteria and fungus and Hazenkamp et al. teaches full yeasticidal efficacy on the specific fungus/yeast Candida albicans ATCC 10231 (a specific fungus, yeast) by contacting a surface with a composition comprising formic acid and methane sulfonic acid.
Regarding the process of using step, Hanson et al. discloses the step of diluting the concentrate liquid composition or forming an aqueous use composition from the solid using water, which can be further diluted, see [0150]. The temperature for the method can range from about 40 degrees F-160 degrees F, see [0152]. The composition is diluted before contacting which is by wiping, dipping, immersing or spraying, see claims 14-15. The reference teaches use of hard surfaces, see claim 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used the diluted composition of Hanson et al comprising the antimicrobial/yeasticidal acids and surfactants and have utilized the same on the hard surfaces for yeasticidal effect.
Applicant argues that the 814 reference teaches surfactants that are compatible with concentrated peracid solutions. Para. 150. However, this consideration greatly limits the range of available surfactants. The 814 reference then describes broad classes of nonionic surfactants, including fatty acid ester ethoxylates, propoxylates, and glycerides. Para. 153. Also, sorbitan esters including their ethoxylates and polyglycerol fatty acid asters are disclosed. Para. 152. Despite this disclosure, the 814 reference does not teach nonionic surfactants, including fatty acid esters, as a biocidal component of a composition. In fact, only peracid biocides are taught. Example 4 Table 8, Examples 22-24, and Examples 26-29 disclose fungicidal, sporicidal, and bactericidal formulations in which one or more peracid compounds represent the antimicrobial agent. Example 15 Table 20 discloses antimicrobial properties of mixtures comprising peracids and various corrosion inhibitors, including phosphate esters, diacids, quat amines, imidazoline, alkyl pyridine, and phosphonium salts. Para. 302. Importantly, the 814 reference fails to include any fatty acid esters in the Examples which provide embodiments of the peracid biocides. There is no apparent motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the compositions taught in the 986 reference with fatty acid esters disclosed in the 814 reference when the 814 reference explicitly teaches that peracids and quaternary ammonium compounds give compositions antimicrobial properties and which are such distinct formulations from the claimed biocidal formulations. Similarly, the 005 reference fails address how one skilled in the art would select a fatty acid ester to be added to a composition to modulate yeasticidal properties of an antimicrobial composition….improve yeasticidal performance.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but is not persuasive. Instant claims require presence of a weak acid such as formic acid, a strong acid such as methane sulfonic acid, anionic surfactant and C6-C24 fatty acid ester glycerides where in the use pH of the composition is from about 1.5 to about 6. As discussed in the rejections of record, Hanson et al. discloses virucidal (antimicrobial) compositions and methods, see title and abstract. Hanson et al. teaches that the antimicrobial composition comprises at least one weak acid, at least one strong acid and/or a combination thereof; at least one alpha olefin sulfonate, anionic sulfonate and water for liquid compositions, wherein the composition is a liquid or solid concentrate having an acidic pH at use composition from about 1.5 to about 4, see [0018]. Balasubramanian et al. while disclosing a disinfectant/antimicrobial composition, teaches use of formic acid in a composition wherein it is in the peroxy form, see [0051], [0065] and [0235]. The reference teaches that microorganisms refer to bacteria, spores, fungi and viruses, see [0056]. The reference teaches additional functional ingredients can be added including surfactants and/or antimicrobial/biocidal agents for enhanced efficacy, see [0108]. Various surfactants can be used depending upon the cleaning surfaces, see [0149]. The reference teaches use of surfactants in the composition including fatty acid esters such as C6-C24 fatty acid ester ethoxylates, propoxylates or glycerides, see [0153], sorbitan esters, their ethoxylates and polyglycerol fatty acid esters as the preferred ones, see [0152]. Therefore, both the references teach use of the surfactants in an antimicrobial composition. As a result, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add the surfactants taught by Balasubramanian because Hanson teaches antimicrobial composition in a solid or liquid/aqueous form and suggests use of non-ionic or amphoteric surfactants in the antimicrobial composition to be used in the form of wiping, spraying, dipping and immersing on the surfaces to be disinfected/cleaned and Balasubramaninan et al. while teaching antimicrobial composition, teaches use of various surfactants including C6-C24 fatty acid ester ethoxylates, propoxylates or glycerides, or sorbitan esters, their ethoxylates or polyglycerol fatty acid esters into the antimicrobial composition which can be used depending upon the cleaning surfaces for antimicrobial effects, wherein the composition can be in a liquid or an aqueous from. Therefore, applicant’s assertion that there is no apparent motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the compositions taught in the 986 reference with fatty acid esters disclosed in the 814 reference when the 814 reference explicitly teaches that peracids and quaternary ammonium compounds give compositions antimicrobial properties and which are such distinct formulations from the claimed biocidal formulations is not persuasive. In regards to the yeasticidal effect, it is evidenced by Hazenkamp et al. that the two acids have yeasticidal effects/ properties. It is noted that the instant claims do not recite that the surfactants have yeasticidal effects or properties. Therefore, utilization of the known surfactants as taught by ‘814 reference would be obvious to have used with the antimicrobial composition of Hansen et al. because as stated above, Hansen teaches use of non-ionic and amphoteric surfactants and suggests preparing liquid or aqueous compositions for cleaning various surfaces and Balasubramanian teaches use of the known surfactants while teaching antimicrobial composition.
Action is final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights