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 .
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
EP 22199783.6 10/05/2022
EP 23181544.0 06/26/2023
CANADA 3215446 10/04/2023
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
In claim 9, there should be a comma and a space between the first two products listed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coffey (WO 2022/024078 A1, February 3, 2022, cited on IDS).
Coffey teaches a Formulation K comprising 1.0% of sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer, 1.0% decyl glucoside (an additional surfactant), 0.20% of a mixture of 1,2-hexanediol and caprylyl glycol (aka 1,2-octanediol), sodium hyaluronate as a polymer/viscosity-increasing agent, propanediol and butylene glycol (an additional solvent), and menthol (a fragrance). Formulation K is free of a quaternary ammonium compound. See Table 1B. The formulations are liquid. See paragraph [0059] and paragraph [0063]. The composition is used to pre-moisten a pad (claim 1), so the composition is applied to an inanimate surface (the pad).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seu-Salerno (EP3078365 B1, April 3, 2020, cited on IDS).
Seu-Salerno teaches a composition comprising 5% of sodium hydroxypropylphosphate laurylglucoside crosspolymer, 5% of pentylene glycol, and 60% of caprylyl/capryl glucoside (an additional surfactant). See Table 1a, composition A12. Composition A12 was then combined with a fragrance and water (an additional solvent) (page 21, last example). The composition was a liquid because it is water-based, and the composition did not contain a quaternary ammonium compound.
Pentylene glycol is a 1,2-alkanediol having 5 carbons, not 6-12 carbons. Seu-Salerno also teaches that 1,2-hexanediol and 1,2-octanediol are alternatives to pentylene glycol and are used at 0-8% or preferably 5% [0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute 1,2-hexanediol and/or 1,2-octanediol for pentylene glycol in Seu-Salerno’s composition because Seu-Salerno teaches that any of the three may be used interchangeably. Simple substitution of one or more diol(s) for another would have resulted in the claimed invention, and the results would have been predictable because Seu-Salerno teaches that any of the three are suitable. Seu-Salerno is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in this application because both Seu-Salerno and the current application are drawn to cleansing compositions.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey or Seu-Salerno in view of Roeding (US 20070265352A1).
Coffey and Seu-Salerno teach as set forth above, cleansing compositions which contain 1,2-hexanediol and 1,2-octanediol.
Coffey and Seu-Salerno do not teach the ratio of the two components, and Coffey also does not teach the concentration in claim 5.
Roeding teaches antimicrobial compositions containing 1,2-hexanediol and 1,2-octanediol as a synergistic mixture. See title and abstract. The weight ratio is preferably 3:1 to 1:3 [0034]. The amount of alkanediol in the composition is 0.1 to 10%, preferably 0.4 to 5% [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include 1,2-hexanediol and 1,2-octanediol in a 3:1 to 1:3 ratio in either the Coffey or Seu-Salerno compositions because the 3:1 to 1:3 ratio provides good antimicrobial effect as taught by Roeding.
It would have been further obvious to include the combination of 1,2-hexanediol and 1,2-octanediol at a concentration of 0.4 to 5% because Roeding teaches that 0.4-5% is an appropriate concentration for an antimicrobial based on 1,2-hexanediol and 1,2-octanediol. 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. In this instance, the claimed range 1.5-5% lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art.
Seu-Salerno is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in this application because both Seu-Salerno and the current application are drawn to cleansing compositions. Likewise, Coffey is also drawn to cleansing compositions.
Conclusion
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Coffey and Seu-Salerno do not teach compositions containing the claimed polymers. Cusack (US20140140936A1) teaches compositions containing the claimed polymers and an organic acid, which is designed to kill microorganisms on surfaces for a period of time after contact. Coffey and Seu-Salerno do not teach a composition designed to kill microorganisms on surfaces for a period of time after contact because they are drawn to cosmetic compositions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA D BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-9572. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00 CST, M-F.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/LAYLA D BERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693