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 § 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.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al., (GB 2379223, pub. 2003).
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. 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)).
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).
In regard to claim 3-4, 7, 12, “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.
The prior art is not anticipatory insofar as it does not provide the claimed ratio of citric acid to lactic acid nor require a preservative.
However, it would have been obvious to add the preservative based on its plan enumeration in the prior art. It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the ratio of citric acid to lactic acid for the purpose of disinfecting a surface. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions of citric acid and lactic acid (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references), is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Since the prior art anticipates the combination of citric acid and lactic acid the prior art would have been capable of exhibiting at least a 3-log or 5-log reduction in Staphylococcus aureus population within 10 minutes.
2) Claim(s) 5, 9, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al., (GB 2379223, pub. 2003) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11 above, and further in view of O’Connell et al., (US 2010/0330013).
Cheung et al., which is taught above, differs from claims 5, 9, 12-20 insofar as it does not teach where the surfactant is amphoteric or alkyl polyglucoside, sodium benzoate, benzoic acid, or where the solvent is an alcohol or diol.
O’Connell et al. teaches cleaning products “disinfectants” for “disinfection and treatment of filter media, textiles, furs, paper, skins or leather, and other products containing amadoriases” (Abstract).
Suitable ingredients for use in disinfectant compositions, taught therein, include “amphoteric surfactants” (p. 18, para. [0200]); “benzoic acid” and “benzoates” (p. 14, para. [0163]); “alkyl polyglucosides” as non-ionic surfactant (p. 6, para. [0090]) and “Solvents” such as “polyhydric alcohols” (p. 12, para. [0144]), which may be present “in amounts between 0.1 and 20 wt.%” (Id. para. [0145]).
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add an amphoteric surfactant, sodium benzoate, benzoic acid, alkyl polyglucoside, and alcohol solvent to the disinfectant of Cheung et al. based on their art recognized suitability for their intended used in disinfectant formulations, as taught by O’Connell et al.
Conclusion
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