Claims 1-7 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “US EPA protocol #01-1A”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is no numerical values recited in the claim to show the values of biocidal activity of the cleaning composition. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3 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.
4 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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss Larry (US 2011/0206790 A1).
Weiss Larry (US’ 790 A1) teaches antimicrobial composition comprising alkyl polyglucosides include sodium decylglucoside hydroxypropyl sulfonate (Suga. Nate 100) and laurylglucoside hydroxypropyl sulfonate see page 3, paragraph, 0033) and wherein the alkyl polyglucosides present in the antimicrobial composition in the amounts of 3.0% and wherein the composition also comprises citric acid in the amount of 0.21% by wt., (see page 6, paragraph, 0063, Table 1, composition 4) and wherein the antimicrobial composition has a pH in the range of 3.5 to 6% as claimed in claim 1 (see page 5, paragraph, 0045) and wherein the antimicrobial composition also comprises additional surfactants include anionic surfactants as claimed in claim 4 (see claim 14) and water as a solvent as claimed in claim 5 (see page 6, Table 1, composition 4) and wherein the antimicrobial composition also comprises fragrance as claimed in claim 6 (see claim 9). Weiss Larry (US’ 790 A1) also teaches a method for applying the antibacterial composition as described above to a contaminated surface as claimed in claim 7 (see claim 20).
The teaching of Weiss Larry (US’ 790 A1) differs from the instant claims by teaching antimicrobial composition comprising ingredients in the amounts overlapped with the claimed ingredients.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amounts of the ingredients in the antibacterial composition in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the composition and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a composition to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
5 Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss Larry (US 2011/0206790 A1) in view of Cusack et al. (US 2014/0140936 A1).
The disclosure of Weiss Larry (US’ 790 A1) as described above, does not teach or disclose antimicrobial composition comprising polymers as claimed in claims 2 and 3.
Cusack et al. (US’ 936 A1) in analogous art of antimicrobial formulation, teaches a disinfecting composition comprising polymers include methyl vinyl ether and maleic acid copolymer as claimed in claims 2 and 3 (see page 8, paragraphs, 0106-0108).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Cusack et al. (US’ 936 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the antimicrobial composition of Weiss Larry (US’ 790 A1) by incorporating the copolymer of methyl vinyl ether and maleic acid as taught by Cusack et al. (US’ 936 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious based on the teaching of Cusack et al. (US’ 936 A1), that refers to the polymers that form complexes with at least organic acid to provide enough active to be released to kill bacteria (see page 1, paragraph, 0013), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a composition to have similar property to those claimed, absent of unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761