0082684DETAILED 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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed 05/15/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103—New By Amendment
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) 1-8, 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al., (GB 2379223, pub. 2003) in view of Leslie et al., (US 2019/0082684).
Cheung et al. teaches cleaning compositions comprising citric acid, wherein the composition “comprises either citric acid alone or citric acid in combination with an acid selected from the group consisting of . . . lactic acid . . .and mixtures thereof; 0.001-10% by weight of at least one anionic surfactant; 0.001-5% by weight of a thickener . . . ; 0-10% by weight of one or more optional constituents; and the balance to 100% by weight, water; wherein the aqueous hard surface cleaning composition exhibits a pH of 6.0 or less. Typically, citric acid is used in combination with lactic acid, glycolic acid or malic acid” (Abstract).
The reference teaches a specific embodiment below:
PNG
media_image1.png
601
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(p. 10). Note: Example 740-146A combines 2.0% citric acid with 2.3% lactic acid and sodium lauryl sulfate (Stepanol WAC; anionic surfactant; sulfate (clm. 6)), as the non-ethoxylated surfactant.
Although, the ratio of citric acid to lactic acid is 2/2.024, in this embodiment, falls outside of the clamed ratio of about 3:1 to about, the amount of citric acid in combination with lactic acid can be adjusted. The reference states, “The acid constituent is desirably present in the formulations such that with the presence of optional ingredients taken into account, the pH of the formulation is at a pH of less than 6 . . . The pH range represents an amount of acid from about 0.5 to about 10% by weight based on the total weight of the composition” (p. 4, lines 17-18). Based on this, it is within the scope of the prior art to formulate a composition having a 3% citric acid and 1% lactic acid, this providing the claimed ratio of about 3:1.
The acids are also taught to be result effective variables insofar as they “are selected to feature disinfecting properties, they concomitantly provide anti-microbial activity necessary to disinfect the cleaned surface” (p. 2, lines 7-13). Accordingly, "[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" (see MPEP 2144.05 IIA quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (105 USPQ 233)).
In regard to claim 3-4, 7, 12, 16 “nonionic surfactants” (p. 4, line 4) and surfactants with “sulfate” (see Table 1 above), surfactants with “amine oxides” (p. 4, lines 11-13) may also be included.
In regard to claim 21, the prior art teaches a viscosity range of “about 100 to about 2000 centipoise” (p. 4, lines 33-34). 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).In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped. (MPEP 2144.05 sec. I). Here “about 100” allows for concentrations less than 100 cps.
Preservatives may also be added in minor amounts in the formulations, i.e., “amounts of about 0.5% by weight of the total composition, more generally an amount of about 0.1% by weight and less, and preferably is present in amounts of about 0.05% by weight and less” (p. 6, lines 2-10).
Ethoxylated surfactants are not required; thus, it would have been obvious to exclude them.
Cheung et al. does not teach where the preservative is sodium benzoate
Leslie et al. teaches “antimicrobial compositions” comprising “two or more of a surfactant; an enhancer; and a buffer”, wherein the “pH of the composition is less than or equal to about 6.0 and the composition achieves a microbial log reduction of greater than 4.0 log CFU/mL at a contact time of 1 minute, in accordance ASTM E2783” (Abstract). The antimicrobial compositions are taught to be applied to “a wide variety of surfaces or substrates, including . . . soft surfaces . . . porous, and non-porous surfaces. . . furniture . . . textiles” (p. 3, para. [0032]).
“In some exemplary embodiments, the antimicrobial composition further comprises at least one surfactant”, wherein “the surfactant is one or more of a nonionic, cationic, anionic, amphoteric, and zwitterionic surfactant” (p. 3, para. [0040]), as per claims 3-5. “In some exemplary embodiments, the nonionic surfactant is an alkyl polyglucoside” (p. 4, par. [0045]), as per claims 17-19.
“The general inventive concepts relate to an antimicrobial composition that contains a synergistic combination of alcohol and at least two or more of a surfactant, an enhancer, and buffer” (p. 2, para. [0030]).
“Moreover, a further synergistic antimicrobial effect is observed when the antimicrobial composition comprises at least one of a buffer and an enhancer, collectively at a concentration of at least 0.50 wt.%, based on the total weight of the antimicrobial composition, at an acidic pH of no greater than 6” (p. 6, para. [0067]).
“A particularly advantageous effect is observed when the buffer is an organic acid, such as citric acid, the enhancer is the salt of an aromatic acid, such as sodium benzoate, and the pH is less than 6” (Id.). Suitable buffers also include “lactic acid” (p. 5, para. [0058]).
“In some exemplary embodiments, the antimicrobial composition has rapid antimicrobial efficacy against bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus . . .” (p. 8, para. [0088]).
Furthermore, the log reduction is linked to the synergistic effect discussed above insofar as the prior art teaches, “Particularly, Sample E exhibited a log reduction of over 4.45 CFU/ml at 30 seconds, which demonstrates that the synergistic effect of the combination used herein is not additive” (p. 10, para. [0097]). Here, “[t]est cultures of S. aureus were used to test each disinfectant’s efficacy” (p. 8, para. [0089]).
In regard to claim 18, the compositions of Leslie include “solvents” (p. 7, para. 0075]; however, as fragrance, “solvents” may be included in amounts “from about 0.005 wt. % to about 5.0 wt.% . . .” (Id. para. [0072]).
In regard to claim 18 and 20, the enhancer can be “one or more of . . . saturated organic diol, organic aldehyde and/or an aromatic alcohol” (p. 6, para. [0063]), where “the enhancer is added in the antimicrobial composition in an amount less than about 10.0 wt. %” (Id. para. [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add sodium benzoate to the antimicrobial compositions of Cheung et al. to take advantage of the synergistic combination of surfactant, citric acid (buffer) and sodium benzoate (enhancer) at a pH of less than 6.The artisan would have reasonably expected at least a 3-log reduction in a Staphylococcus aureus population within 10 minutes in view of the prior art demonstrating a log reduction of Staphylococcus aureus of over 4.45 CFU/ml at 30 seconds, with said combination of synergistic ingredients.
Ethoxylated surfactants are not required; thus, it would have been obvious to exclude them.
Technological Background
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Hayes et al., (J Surfact Deterg. 2022). Hayes et al. is pertinent for teaching, “1,4-Doxane, a co-product that forms during the preparation of ethoxylated surfactants, particularly sulfated and phosphorylated ethoxylates, is classified as a potential human carcinogen whose occurrence in surface water and ground water is of particular concern. As a result, the US state of New York has passed laws that will limit the concentration of 1,5-dioxane to ppm levels in household cleaning, personal care and cosmetic products, all of which commonly employ ethoxylated fatty alcohol sulfate surfactants and California is considering such laws” (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
i) Applicant argues that Cheung “does not teach the claimed ratio of citric acid to lactic acid”; “Cheung is not on sanitization at all, but on removal of soap scum . . .”; the claimed invention “is surprisingly capable of achieving the claimed antimicrobial efficacy” (p. 7-10).
However, as explained in the rejection above, the pH range represents an amount of acid from about 0.5 to about 10% by weight based on the total weight of the composition (see p. 4, lines 17-18). Providing amounts of each acid, as claimed would have been obvious in view of the concentration range disclosed by Cheung.
Further, in addition to removing soap scum, the acids “are selected to feature disinfecting properties, they concomitantly provide anti-microbial activity necessary to disinfect the cleaned surface” (p. 2, lines 11-13). Accordingly, the artisan would have reasonably been expected to modify the amount of the acids in an effort to optimize their antimicrobial efficacy.
ii) Applicant argues, “the inclusion of sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate as a preservative, with the defined ratio of citric acid to lactic acid is advantageous and synergistic, and key to the claimed invention” (p. 7).
However, the combination of citric acid and sodium benzoate is known in the art to be synergistic, as taught by Leslie et al. above. Leslie et al. teaches that combinations of a surfactant, an enhancer, i.e. sodium benzoate, and a buffer, i.e. citric acid, at a pH of less than or equal to about 6.0, achieves a Staphylococcus aureus log reduction of greater than 4.0 log CFU/mL at a contact time of 1 minute. Accordingly, applicant’s evidence showing at least a 3-log reduction in a Staphylococcus aureus population within 10 minutes, is not surprising in view of Leslie et al.
Further, in regard to use of ethoxylated surfactants. It was known in the art at the time of applicant’s filing that ethoxylated surfactants are responsible for the presence of 1,4-dioxane, which is a known human carcinogen (see Hayes et al. at Technological Background above). Accordingly, it would have behooved artisans to remove ethoxylated surfactants from disinfectants for the sake of protecting consumers from exposure to known carcinogens.
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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER E WEBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3287 and fax number is (571) 270-4287. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Fri 7-3:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup can be reached (571) 272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Walter E. Webb
/WALTER E WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights