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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-11 and 13-20 are 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 10 is rejected 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”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, because it is unclear what sulfonate compounds are being claimed. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 11 is rejected 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”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “Norovirus actives”. The examiner notes that paragraph 158 of the instant specification recites that examples of Norovirus actives are ethanol, silver citrate and/or electrolytic chlorine, but it is unclear if this is a complete list of “Norovirus actives”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 11 is rejected 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”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “alcohols and/or other organic solvents”. It is unclear if the composition must be free of both alcohols and other organic solvents. Also, it is unclear which organic solvents make up “other organic solvents”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 13-20 are rejected 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. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the limitation that appears within the parentheses is required. Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 13. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 13-20 are rejected 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. The limitation “hard water tolerant” renders the claim vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “hard water tolerant”. Furthermore, the specification does not contain guidelines describing what numerical values are encompassed by the limitation “hard water tolerant”. Claims 14-20 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 13. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 13-20 are rejected 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. The limitation “does not streak on the surface” renders the claim vague and indefinite, since 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”. Furthermore, the specification does not contain guidelines describing what numerical values are encompassed by the limitation “does not streak on the surface”. Claims 14-20 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 13. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected 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.
Guo et al, US 2022/0056374, discloses an organic acid based antimicrobial formulation comprising 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). It is further taught by Guo et al that the composition is safe for use on food surfaces without rinsing, wherein the formulation is sprayed onto the hard surface (see paragraph 17), that the formulation is diluted before application (see paragraph 22), that the formulation further contains lactic acid (see paragraph 52), that suitable fatty acids contain 8-18 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain (see paragraph 53), that 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), that the formulation contains additional components, such as additional surfactants (see paragraphs 59-65), and that the formulation is free of peroxides (see paragraph 66), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples in Tables 1-10, which meet the weight percentage requirements of instant claim 12 prior to dilution with water. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are anticipated by Guo et al, US 2022/0056374.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected 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.
Buchalova et al, US 2015/0335598, discloses a germicidal composition comprising 0.05-35% by weight of formic acid, 0.05-35% by weight of one or more C2-C10 carboxylic acids, such as lactic acid or citric acid, and one or more anionic surfactants, such as C8-C18 olefin sulfonates, wherein the composition is diluted with water prior to use (see abstract and paragraphs 10-11). It is further taught by Buchalova et al that after dilution, each of the formic acid and C2-C10 carboxylic acid are present in the composition in an amount of 0.05-5% by weight (see paragraphs 20-21), 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), that the composition contains additional ingredients, such as nonionic surfactants and alkyl polyglucosides (see paragraph 25), pH adjusting agents, such as additional acids (see paragraph 30), and that the composition is used in a process to treat the surface of animal hooves (see paragraphs 44-49), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples 1-63 in Tables 1-13, and especially, note Examples 13-14 in Table 7, which contains lactic acid, formic acid, alpha-olefin sulfonate, sodium lauryl sulfate, and water. Therefore, instant claims 1-17 and 19-20 are anticipated by Buchalova et al, US 2015/0335598.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,002. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,059,002 claims a similar method for treating a surface with a composition comprising formic acid, peroxyformic acid, an alkyl sulfate, and alkyl sulfonate, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,002), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 18-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,002.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/910,242. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/910,242 claims a similar method for cleaning a surface with a composition comprising citric acid, lactic acid, an alpha-olefin sulfonate, an alkyl sulfate, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/910,242), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/910,242.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
February 18, 2026