DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed May 20, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10-13 and 17. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20260218.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “the sulfonate is a C8-C22 alpha olefin sulfonate and the sulfonate is a C8-C22 or a C8-C16 alpha olefin sulfonate” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the composition is free of Norovirus actives” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the composition is free of alcohols and/or other organic solvents” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “(active basis)” in claims 13 and 17 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “hard water tolerant” in claim 13 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “does not streak on the surface” in claim 13 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guo et al, US 2022/0056374, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guo et al, US 2022/0056374, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Buchalova et al, US 2015/0335598, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 18-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,002 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/910,242 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation “does not streak on the surface” that is recited in claim 13 is a functional property that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “does not streak on the surface”. What is considered a streak on a surface to one person may not be considered a streak on a surface to another person.
Applicant further argues that Guo et al, US 2022/0056374, does not teach or suggest in general an antimicrobial formulation that contains 5-50% by weight of an alkyl sulfate and 5-50% by weight of a sulfonate, as required by applicant in newly amended claim 1. Although the examiner agrees with applicant on this point, the examiner respectfully asserts that the method of using the antimicrobial composition in claims 13-20 requires diluting with water, wherein the use concentration of the composition is 0.2-20% active basis. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that the weight percent of both the alkyl sulfate and sulfonate surfactants in claim 13 is 0.01-10% by weight (i.e. 0.2% of 5% by weight for a lower limit of 0.01% by weight and 20% of 50% by weight for an upper limit of 10% by weight). The examiner respectfully maintains that Guo et al clearly discloses an organic based antimicrobial composition containing 0.1-5% by weight of citric acid, 0.01-1% by weight of an anionic surfactant, 0.1-5% by weight of a non-volatile glycol solvent, 0.0001-0.1% by weight of a fatty acid, and water, wherein the formulation does not contain antimicrobial compounds, and provides disinfection of at least a 3 log reduction in 4 minutes or less (see abstract and paragraph 15), wherein suitable anionic surfactants include sodium lauryl sulfate and secondary alkane sulfonates that contain 6-16 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain (see paragraphs 54-55), per the requirements of instant claims 13-20.
Applicant further argues that Buchalova et al, US 2015/0335598, does not teach or suggest in general a germicidal composition that contains 5-50% by weight of an alkyl sulfate and 5-50% by weight of a sulfonate, as required by applicant in newly amended claim 1. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Buchalova et al clearly discloses that their germicidal composition contains one or more anionic surfactants, such as C8-C18 olefin sulfonates (see abstract and paragraphs 10-11), and that suitable additional anionic surfactants include alkyl sulfates, such as sodium lauryl sulfate, wherein the total amount of anionic surfactant in the composition is 0.1-60% by weight before dilution and 0.1-5% by weight after dilution (see paragraph 23), per the requirements of the instant invention.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights