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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common technical feature of Groups I-III requires claim 1 in its full scope, and thus does not impose an undue searching and examination burden on the Examiner.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the previous Office Action did not establish an undue search burden of the claims as specified by MPEP 803. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a national stage entry filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is therefore not subject to US restriction practice but rather subject to lack of unity practice, see MPEP 1893.03(d). It is noted that undue search burden is not a criterion in lack of unity analysis. The test is whether or not special technical features can be established. It is noted that inventions listed as Groups I-III do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth in the previous Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-15 and 17-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecking (US 20120301421 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 12/07/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Hecking teaches an air decontamination formulation ([0011-0012]), but fails to specifically disclose approximately 28% to approximately 38% by weight of the formulation of dipropylene glycol. Hecking mentions in [0103] a 0.1-30 wt.% range for triethylene glycol, where “at least one odor neutralizing agent comprises at least one alkylene glycol… selected from the group consisting of mono-, di- or tri-alkylene glycols, such as for example triethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, and mixtures thereof” ([0103])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected 30% from the disclosed 0.1-30 wt.% range of the triethylene glycol provided by Hecking and further substitute triethylene glycol with dipropylene glycol as taught by Hecking because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., odor neutralizing function) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07), and 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).
Modified Hecking fails to teach approximately 0.12% to approximately 0.43% by weight of the formulation of an odor neutralizing cationic surfactant.
Hecking teaches an odor neutralizing cationic surfactant (soyethyl morpholinium ethosulfate is a cationic surfactant and an odor neutralizer, [0071] and [0104]) at a disclosed 0.1-5 wt.% range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected 0.4% from the disclosed surfactant 0.1-5 wt.% range provided by Hecking, 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).
Modified Hecking fails to teach approximately 28% to approximately 50% by weight of the formulation of an alcohol.
Hecking teaches a co-solvent ([0099-0100]) disclosed with a 0-40 wt.% range (“no more than about 40 wt.%”, [0099-0100]), where the co-solvent could be “a low molecular weight monohydric alcohol, such as a C1-C3 alcohol including methanol, ethanol, propanol, and isopropanol” ([0099]).
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 selected ethanol as a co-solvent from the disclosed options taught by Hecking and select a wt% value of 30% as disclosed from the 0-40 wt.% range also taught by Hecking because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., co-solvent) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07), and 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).
Modified Hecking fails to teach approximately 14% to approximately 33% by weight of the formulation of water.
Hecking mentions in [0100] how the co-solvent is “preferably at a concentration lower than the water content”, meaning the water is mentioned to be more than the selected 30 wt% of co-solvent (e.g., greater than 30 wt.%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected 31 wt.% from the disclosed greater than 30 wt.% range of water provided by Hecking, 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).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “wherein the formulation is a single phase liquid” is inherently taught by modified Hecking because the air decontamination formulation of [0034] of the instant specification (synonymous and structurally similar with the claim 1 limitations) is “a single liquid phase and therefore do not require shaking by consumers before use” (instant specification, [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hecking teaches wherein the formulation does not include an emulsifier (“the air treating composition does not include any emulsifier”, [0100]), a nonionic surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant, or any combination thereof (the cationic surfactant in this embodiment and claim 1 rejection above as mentioned in [0071] does not further require a nonionic or amphoteric surfactant).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hecking teaches wherein the odor neutralizing cationic surfactant is a quaternary morpholinium alkyl sulfate compound being soyethyl morpholinium ethosulfate (soyethyl morpholinium ethosulfate, [0071] and [0104]).
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecking (US 20120301421 A1), further in view of Li et al. (CN 111084185 A).
Regarding claim 11, Hecking (abstract) teaches the formulation of claim 1 above, but fails to teach a corrosion inhibitor.
Li teaches an air sterilizing composition within an interior space (abstract), where 0.1-0.2% of the composition comprises a sodium benzoate corrosion inhibitor in order to provide an “anti-rust capability of the metal piece, which effectively prevents the corrosion of the wall metal piece and rubber plastic” (p.3, 3rd to last paragraph of English translation).
Hecking and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air decontamination and deodorization compositions for application within an interior space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decontamination formulation of Hecking by incorporating a corrosion inhibitor such as sodium benzoate in order to provide an “anti-rust capability of the metal piece, which effectively prevents the corrosion of the wall metal piece and rubber plastic” (Li, p.3, 3rd to last paragraph of English translation).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM 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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758