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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-14, 16-21, 23-24, 27 and 32-33 are pending.
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 1, 5-6, 10, 12-14, 16-21, 23-24, 27 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 2016/0074549 A1) in view of Larson et al. (US 2010/0120913 A1).
Lei et al., throughout the reference, teach a hydrogen peroxide disinfectant composition, a two-part formulation, and a method of disinfecting a surface of microorganisms (Abstract; [0002], [0014], [0025], [0026]; Claims 1-44).
Regarding instant claim 1, Lei et al. teach a concentrate or ready-to-use composition comprising hydrogen peroxide, a non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid or salt thereof, an additional acid other than the organic sulfonic acid, water, a water-miscible solvent, a buffer, a stabilizer, and a corrosion inhibitor ([0014]-[0015], [0018], [0020], [0024]-[0026], [0029]-[0030], [0034]-[0035], [0037], [0039], [0041], [0047]-[0048]; Examples 1-3; Claims 1, 7, 9, 17, 20, 34 and 40). The additional acid can be a carboxylic acid such as C1 to C8 monocarboxylic acid, including acetic acid, and mixtures thereof ([0018], [0035]). Lei et al. teach that the concentrate and ready-to-use solution of the invention may further include a stabilizer to deactivate impurities that can cause hydrogen peroxide decomposition. The stabilizer may be added to prevent the components from decomposing on the shelf prematurely during storage of the formulation ([0039]).
Regarding instant claim 6, Lei et al. teach that the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 2 to about 15 wt.% of the total concentrate ([0017]); and the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 0.005 to about 3.0 wt.% of the total ready-to-use solution ([0022]).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 5, Lei et al. do not explicitly disclose the polymeric sulfonic acid resin based chelator that is insoluble in the liquid sterilant and remains as a discrete solid phase during storage and use of claim 1, or the sulfonated divinyl benzene/styrene copolymer, perfluorosulfonic acid resin or polymer containing a 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid resin of claim 5.
However, Larson et al. throughout the reference teach a method of stabilizing a peracid or peracid concentration in a peracid-containing composition during storage comprising the steps of providing a peracid-containing composition and a cationic exchange resin, and then stabilizing the peracid-containing composition or peracid concentration by contacting the peracid-containing composition with the cationic exchange resin during storage ([0011]; Claim 1). Larson et al. teach the peracid being stabilized can be produced by adding or contacting an amount of cationic exchange resin to a solution of water, a carboxylic acid, and hydrogen peroxide. Any carboxylic acid can be used in the manufacturing methods, including acetic acid ([0018]; Claims 60-63). The cationic exchange resins used in the systems and methods of the present application can be of any type known in the art, including sulfonated polystyrene resins such as sulfonated polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymers ([0019]; Claims 35-36). The term “cationic exchange resin” refers to an insoluble matrix (or structure) often, but necessarily, in the form of small (1-2 mm diameter) beads, usually white or yellowish, fabricated from an organic polymer substrate ([0005], [0021]; Claims 7-8, 40-41, 64-65, 78).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Lei et al. wherein the stabilizer is a sulfonated polystyrene resin such as sulfonated polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymers, as reasonably taught by Larson et al., wherein the cationic exchange resin is an insoluble matrix. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the sulfonated polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymers of Larson et al. in order to stabilize the peracid-containing formulation during storage for several hours to several months or even years.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Lei et al. teach combining hydrogen peroxide and an optional carboxylic acid in water, and Larson et al. teach the formation of the stabilized peracid formulation by combining hydrogen peroxide, a carboxylic acid such as acetic acid, a sulfonated polystyrene resin and water.
Regarding instant claim 10, Lei et al. teach that the corrosion inhibitor is include benzotriazole ([0042]).
Regarding instant claims 12-13, Lei et al. do not explicitly disclose the solubilizer is propylene glycol present from about 9.5% to about 10.5% of claims 12-13.
Larson et al. teach that it is believed that polyhydric alcohols can enhance stability of the peracid-containing compositions. Without being limited by theory, it is believed that the increased number of hydroxyl groups in the polyhydric alcohols enhance the potency of the disinfectant and sterilant solutions by interacting with the aqueous medium and the peracid thereby stabilizing the solution. The increase in the hydroxyl groups may also increase the number of hydroxyl radicals or groups in the disinfectant/sterilant solutions thereby further enhancing the potency or kill ability of the solutions/dispersions. Examples of polyhydric alcohols which can be used in the present application include but are not limited to ethylene glycol (ethane-1,2-diol) glycerin (or glycerol, propane-1,2,3-triol), and propane-1,2-diol ([0028]-[0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to include propylene glycol in the compositions according to Lei et al. in order to enhance stability of the peracid-containing compositions, as well as enhance the potency of the disinfectant and sterilant solutions, as reasonably suggested by Larson et al.
Regarding instant claim 14, Lei et al. teach that the water-miscible organic solvents include diethylene glycol monoethyl ether ([0024], [0029]; Claim 42).
Regarding instant claims 16-18 and 21, Lei et al. teach that the concentrate comprises about 2 to about 8 weight percent of hydrogen peroxide, about 0.2 to about 10 weight percent of optional acid (i.e., acetic acid), about 2 to about 15 weight percent of non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid, buffer in an amount to adjust the pH, and about 0.05 to about 0.5 weight percent of corrosion inhibitor, based on the total weight of the concentrate ([0016]-[0018], [0020]). Lei et al. teach that the concentrate can be diluted with water to form a ready-to-use formulation ([0021]). The ready-to-use formulation comprises about 0.05 to about 5.0 weight percent hydrogen peroxide, about 0.05 to about 6.0 weight percent optional acid (i.e., acetic acid), about 0.05 to about 5.0 weight percent non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid, buffer in an amount to adjust the pH, about 0.001 to about 0.5 weight percent of corrosion inhibitor, and about 0.5% to about 20% by weight of water-miscible organic solvent (i.e., solubilizer and cleaner), based on the total weight of the ready-to-use formulation ([0022]-[0023]). Lei et al. teach that the solution includes water and optionally a water-miscible organic solvent diluted in a range with water from about 0.5% to about 20% by weight of water present in the ready-to-use solution ([0029]).
Larson et al. teach that the cationic resin is present at a weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin of about 1:100 w/w to 100,000:1 w/w. In another embodiment, the cationic exchange resin is present at a weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin of about 1:10 w/w to 10,000:1 w/w. In one embodiment, the weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin is 100:1 w/w to 100:5 w/w ([0020]).
Lei et al. teach the hydrogen peroxide source is typically about 2 to about 8 weight percent of the total concentrate, and the biocidal amount of hydrogen peroxide in the ready-to-use solution is typically from about 0.05 to about 5.0 weight percent of the total solution ([0016], [0022]). Lei et al. teach that the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 2 to about 15 wt.% of the total concentrate ([0017]); and the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 0.005 to about 3.0 wt.% of the total ready-to-use solution ([0022]). Lei et al. also teach the optional acid, such as acetic acid, is typically about 0.2 to about 10 weight percent of the total concentrate, and from about 0.05 to about 6.0 weight percent of the total solution ([0018], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to determine through routine experimentation the workable concentration ranges for the hydrogen peroxide, peracid, cationic exchange resin, buffer, anticorrosive agent, solubilizer and cleaner taught by Lei et al. and Larson et al.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here 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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding instant claims 19-20, Lei et al. teaches formulations optionally comprising a mineral acid such as sulfuric acid ([0036]), and formulations optionally comprising a stabilizer such as EDTA ([0039]). However, these components are optional, and Lei et al. teach that instead of the mineral acid the formulations may comprise a carboxylic acid such as acetic acid ([0035]), and instead of the EDTA the formulations may comprise other known organic and inorganic sequestering agents ([0039]).
Therefore, the formulations according to Lei et al. do not require the presence of either sulfuric acid or EDTA.
Regarding instant claim 23, Lei et al. do not explicitly disclose formulations comprising peracetic acid in a concentration of from about 2000 ppm to about 3000 ppm PAA of claim 23.
Larson et al. teach that the cationic resin is present at a weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin of about 1:100 w/w to 100,000:1 w/w. In another embodiment, the cationic exchange resin is present at a weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin of about 1:10 w/w to 10,000:1 w/w. In one embodiment, the weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin is 100:1 w/w to 100:5 w/w ([0020]).
Lei et al. teach the hydrogen peroxide source is typically about 2 to about 8 weight percent of the total concentrate, and the biocidal amount of hydrogen peroxide in the ready-to-use solution is typically from about 0.05 to about 5.0 weight percent of the total solution ([0016], [0022]). Lei et al. teach that the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 2 to about 15 wt.% of the total concentrate ([0017]); and the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 0.005 to about 3.0 wt.% of the total ready-to-use solution ([0022]). Lei et al. also teach the optional acid, such as acetic acid, is typically about 0.2 to about 10 weight percent of the total concentrate, and from about 0.05 to about 6.0 weight percent of the total solution ([0018], [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions comprising a peracid such as peracetic acid, about 0.05 to about 5.0 weight percent hydrogen peroxide, about 0.005 to about 3.0 wt.% of a polymeric sulfonic acid resin based chelator, and about 0.05 to about 6.0 weight percent acetic acid, wherein the ratio of peracid to polymeric sulfonic acid resin is 1:10 to 10,000:1 w/w.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here 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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding instant claim 24, Lei et al. teach that the pH of the concentrate is from about 0.5 to about 5 ([0037]).
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(I).
Regarding instant claim 27, Lei et al. teach a method of disinfecting a surface of microorganisms, said method comprising contacting the surface with the disinfecting composition ([0025], [0046], [0048]; Claims 34-37).
Regarding instant claim 32, Lei et al. teach a two-part disinfectant comprising two containers ([00265], [0047]; Claims 40-41).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare a container (A) comprising hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid and peracetic acid, because Larson et al. teach the combination hydrogen peroxide, carboxylic acid, water and cationic exchange resin stabilizes the peracid containing formulation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to then prepare container (B) comprising the additional components, followed by mixing at the time of use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Lei of using a polymeric, insoluble sulfonic acid resin, nor of maintaining such a resin as a discrete solid phase within the disinfecting composition. Applicant also argues that Larson's resin contact is a processing step, not a configuration in which the resin remains present during use of the disinfectant. Specifically, Larson does not teach retaining the resin in the final use solution, employing the resin as an in-use chelator to address contamination introduced by users, or maintaining the resin as a discrete solid phase throughout storage and use.
The examiner respectfully argues that Larson et al. teach that the cationic exchange resin can be retained and maintained within a compartment present in the container in which the peracid-composition is stored. In addition to the beads and strands, the cationic exchange resin can be integrated directly into the container in which the peracid-containing composition is stored. When the cationic exchange resin is integrated into the container, it is integrated so as to allow continuous contact between the cationic exchange resin and the peracid. For example, in one aspect of the invention, the cationic exchange resin can be coated onto an interior wall of the container. In another aspect, the cationic exchange resin can be integrated into the cap of the container either as a coated layer or as a protrusion that can be in continuous contact with the peracid-containing composition present in the container. Regardless of the form of the cationic exchange resin, it is desirable that the resin be maintained in contact with the peracid-containing composition during its storage (Abstract; [0021]-[0024]). Therefore, it is clear that Larson et al. teach that the cationic exchange resin is in contact with the solution during storage.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant asserts that Larson's teachings are directed to temporary stabilization during preparation or storage, whereas the claims require a persistent, insoluble chelator that functions during use of the liquid sterilant.
The examiner respectfully argues that Larson et al. clearly teach that the cationic exchange resin, which can be submersed in the peracid-containing composition as beads or strands or can be integrated as part of the container containing the peracid-containing composition, is maintained in contact with the peracid-containing composition during the storage of the composition. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maintain contact of the cationic exchange resin with the peracid-containing composition throughout the entire storage process.
Applicant also argues that even if Lei and Larson are considered together, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Lei's homogeneous disinfectant compositions to include an insoluble polymeric sulfonic acid resin that remains present as a solid phase during use. Such a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of Lei's compositions, which rely on fully dissolved components.
The examiner respectfully argues that Lei et al. teach that the concentrate and ready-to-use solution of the invention may further include a stabilizer to deactivate impurities that can cause hydrogen peroxide decomposition. The stabilizer may be added to prevent the components from decomposing on the shelf prematurely during storage of the formulation ([0039]). Larson et al. teach cationic exchange resins, such as sulfonated polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymers, stabilize the peracid-containing compositions. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to include the cationic exchange resin of Larson et al. in the compositions according to Lei et al., wherein the cationic exchange resins function to stabilize the peracid-containing compositions for hours, months or even years.
Applicant further argues that neither Lei nor Larson suggests that retaining a solid resin in the use solution would be desirable, compatible, or beneficial. The claimed configuration instead addresses a different technical problem-namely, chelating metal contaminants introduced during real-world use without dissolving into or leaving residue in the sterilant-a problem not recognized or addressed by the applied prior art.
The examiner respectfully argues that Larson et al. teach cationic exchange resins stabilizing peracid-containing compositions. In response to applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further asserts that the amended claims do not merely recite optimized concentration ranges or predictable substitutions. Rather, they require a specific physical state and functional role of the polymeric sulfonic acid resin chelator-namely, that it be insoluble, discrete, and operative during use.
The examiner respectfully argues that Larson et al. teach that the cationic resin is present at a weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin of about 1:100 w/w to 100,000:1 w/w. In another embodiment, the cationic exchange resin is present at a weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin of about 1:10 w/w to 10,000:1 w/w. In one embodiment, the weight ratio of peracid to cationic exchange resin is 100:1 w/w to 100:5 w/w ([0020]).
Lei et al. teach the hydrogen peroxide source is typically about 2 to about 8 weight percent of the total concentrate, and the biocidal amount of hydrogen peroxide in the ready-to-use solution is typically from about 0.05 to about 5.0 weight percent of the total solution ([0016], [0022]). Lei et al. teach that the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 2 to about 15 wt.% of the total concentrate ([0017]); and the non-surfactant organic sulfonic acid is typically about 0.005 to about 3.0 wt.% of the total ready-to-use solution ([0022]). Lei et al. also teach the optional acid, such as acetic acid, is typically about 0.2 to about 10 weight percent of the total concentrate, and from about 0.05 to about 6.0 weight percent of the total solution ([0018], [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions comprising a peracid such as peracetic acid, about 0.05 to about 5.0 weight percent hydrogen peroxide, about 0.005 to about 3.0 wt.% of a polymeric sulfonic acid resin based chelator, and about 0.05 to about 6.0 weight percent acetic acid, wherein the ratio of peracid to polymeric sulfonic acid resin is 1:10 to 10,000:1 w/w.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here 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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 2016/0074549 A1) in view of Larson et al. (US 2010/0120913 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 10, 12-14, 16-21, 23-24, 27 and 32-33 above, further in view of Matta et al. (US 9,693,675).
The teachings of Lei et al. and Larson et al. are discussed above.
Matta et al. throughout the reference teach a cleaner composition comprising a chelator, buffer, cleaner, solubilizer, and diluent, wherein the cleaner is optionally applied with a disinfectant (Abstract; col. 1, ln. 28 to col. 2, ln. 8).
Regarding instant claim 7, Lei et al. teach that to alter the pH values, buffers such as sodium hydroxide and/or the alkali metal salts of phosphoric acid may be added to the formulations. The pH of the concentrate is from about 0.5 to about 5, and the pH of the ready-to-use solution is from about 1.0 to about 4.5 ([0037]).
Regarding instant claims 7-9, Lei et al. do not explicitly disclose the buffer comprising from about 3% to about 4.5% sodium hydroxide and from about 14% to about 18% potassium phosphate dibasic of claims 7-9.
Matta et al. teach that the buffer system comprises sodium hydroxide and potassium phosphate dibasic in a total amount of about 10 to about 20 wt.% of the composition, particularly 2.16 wt.% sodium hydroxide and 14.2 wt.% potassium phosphate dibasic (col. 1, ln. 35-38, 48-50, and 61-64; col. 5, ln. 59-61; Claims 1-2).
Matta et al. further teach that the composition comprises a cleaner that includes diethyl glycol monoethyl ether, present in about 5.0 wt.% of the composition, a solubilizer that includes propylene glycol, present in about 10.0 wt.% of the composition, and a diluent that includes water (col. 1, ln. 38-43, 51-55, and 64-67; col. 2, ln. 1; col. 5, ln. 61-65).
Matta et al. further teach a disinfectant comprising hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, HEDP, polyoxypropylene-polyoxyethylene block copolymer, water, and peracetic acid (col. 5, ln. 40-46); wherein the substrates are cleaned with the cleaning composition and disinfected with the disinfectant (Abstract; Example 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare formulations according to Lei et al. wherein the buffer comprises sodium hydroxide and potassium phosphate dibasic, as reasonably suggested by Matta et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the buffer system of Matta et al. comprising sodium hydroxide and potassium phosphate dibasic because Lei et al. teach that the buffer can include sodium hydroxide and alkali metal salts of phosphoric acid.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the optimum concentration of sodium hydroxide and potassium phosphate dibasic for maintaining the desired pH according to Lei et al. and Matta et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants do not dispute that Matta discloses buffer systems, cleaners, and solubilizers, particularly sodium hydroxide, potassium phosphate dibasic, propylene glycol, and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether. However, Applicant argues that Matta fails to address-let alone suggest the critical limitation now recited in the claims: an insoluble polymeric sulfonic acid resin chelator that remains as a discrete solid phase during storage and use. Moreover, Matta teaches chelation using fully dissolved, solution-phase chelators such as EDTA, which Applicants have expressly excluded from the claimed compositions.
The examiner respectfully argues, as discussed above, that Larson et al. teach an insoluble polymeric sulfonic acid resin that remains as a discrete solid phase during storage and use. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to prepare compositions comprising the cationic exchange resin according to Larson et al. as a stabilizer for the peracid-containing compositions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights