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 .
Status of Application
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 03/31/26 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 5 were amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending and are included in the prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 03/31/26 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Please see the attached copy of PTO-1449.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Claim Objections
In light of the amendment of claim 1, the objection to this claim is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
Applicant amended claim 1 to incorporate the subject matter of claim 5. In light of the amendment of claim 1, Applicant’s arguments (Page 6, filed 03/31/26) regarding the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Natsch (US 2008/0118591 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 5 was previously not included in the anticipation rejection. Therefore, the anticipation rejection over Natsch is withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, new ground(s) of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Natsch (US 2008/0118591 A1) in view of Heckert et al. (US 4,005,028 – “Heckert”).
Since the new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, this action is made FINAL.
Provisional Double Patenting Rejection
The provisional rejection of claims 1-16 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 8, 13, 20, 29, 39, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 58-59, and 61-62 of copending Application No. 17/799,856 (“the ‘856 Application”) is withdrawn since the ‘856 Application was abandoned on 04/24/26.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsch (US 2008/0118591 A1) in view of Heckert et al. (US 4,005,028 – “Heckert”).
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an antimicrobial composition comprising:
a perfume ingredient having a bactericidal effect of a 5.5 log reduction in an ethanol solution at a concentration of less than or equal to 0.1% in ethanol solution;
a surfactant; and
a hydrotrope,
wherein the antimicrobial composition comprises less than 4% hydrotrope.
Natsch teaches bactericidal formulations that come into contact with human body, particularly wash formulations including liquid soaps, comprising perfume ingredients active against gram-negative bacteria (Abstract, Examples 1-10, claims 1-16). Natsch teaches a formulation comprising (a) at least 0.2% (w/v) of one or more perfume ingredients having a sufficiently rapid bactericidal activity against gram-negative bacteria, (b) 4% to 20% (w/v) of a hydrotrope, and (c) 0.1% to 9% (w/v) of one or more surfactant selected from the group consisting of anionic, non-ionic and amphoteric surfactants, or combinations thereof (claims 1-10). A bactericidal perfume composition containing at least 70% (w/v) of at least 10 different bactericidal perfume ingredients, and optionally up to 30% of other non-bactericidal perfume ingredients is disclosed (claims 11-12). A method of providing rapid bactericidal consumer product formulations is disclosed (claims 13-16).
Natsch does not expressly teach less than 4% hydrotrope.
Heckert teaches a detergent composition (Abstract) including a light duty liquid detergent composition used for hand washing of cooking utensils and tableware which contains a hydrotrope, e.g., toluene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate or xylene sulfonate at a level of from 1% to 20% (Col. 21, lines 18-29 and 37-41). Heckert teaches the inclusion of perfumes in the exemplified detergent compositions (Examples VII, VIII, IX, X, and XII).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a bactericidal formulation that come into contact with human body, particularly wash formulations including liquid soaps, comprising perfume ingredients active against gram-negative bacteria, a surfactant and a hydrotrope, as taught by Natsch, in view of the light duty liquid detergent composition used for hand washing of cooking utensils and tableware which contains a hydrotrope, e.g., toluene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate or xylene sulfonate at a level of from 1% to 20%, wherein the detergent composition contains perfumes, as taught by Heckert, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because both references teach liquid wash compositions containing perfumes that are used by hand for cleaning and contain the same hydrotropes toluene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate or xylene sulfonate, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). Furthermore, the range of the hydrotrope taught by Heckert, i.e., 1% to 20%, overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range of the hydrotrope, i.e., less than 4%. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of an antimicrobial composition would have been obvious over the bactericidal formulations comprising perfume ingredients active against gram-negative bacteria (Abstract, Examples 1-10, claims 1-16), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of a perfume ingredient having a bactericidal effect of a 5.5 log reduction in an ethanol solution at a concentration of less than or equal to 0.1% in ethanol solution would have been obvious over the perfume ingredients active against gram-negative bacteria (Abstract), wherein the perfume ingredient must have a reduction factor of bacterial viability of at least 20-fold when it is tested in a concentration of 0.2% in Mueller Hinton Broth with a contact time of 30 seconds ([0057]-[0058]), as taught by Natsch. The specific bactericidal effect recited in instant claim 1 is an intrinsic property of the perfume ingredient and inseparable from it. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the composition, then the properties are also taught by the prior art. The burden is shifted to Applicant to show that the prior art product does not render obvious the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 3-4, the limitations of a surfactant would have been obvious over the surfactants ([0004], [0065], claims 1, 5, 8, 9, and 13) and cocamidopropyl betaine (TABLE 2, [0132]), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of a hydrotrope would have been obvious over the hydrotrope (claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 13) and toluene sulfonate, xylene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate, diisobutyl-sulfosuccinate, dipropyleneglycol-n-butyl-ether; or a combination of one or more of these hydrotropes ([0026], [0075]-[0078], TABLES 2, 8, 9, and 11), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claims 1, 5 and 6, the limitations of less than 4% hydrotrope (instant claim 1), less than 2% hydrotrope (instant claim 5), and the hydrotrope (instant claim 6) would have been obvious over the hydrotrope (claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 13), toluene sulfonate, xylene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate, diisobutyl-sulfosuccinate, dipropyleneglycol-n-butyl-ether; or a combination of one or more of these hydrotropes ([0026], [0075]-[0078], TABLES 2, 8, 9, and 11), as taught by Natsch, in view of the hydrotrope, e.g., toluene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate or xylene sulfonate at a level of from 1% to 20% (Col. 21, lines 18-29 and 37-41), as taught by Heckert. The range of the hydrotrope taught by Heckert, i.e., 1% to 20%, overlaps and renders obvious the claimed ranges of the hydrotrope, i.e., less than 4% and less than 2%. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claim 2, the limitation of the perfume ingredient which is at least 0.001% (w/v) of the antimicrobial composition would have been obvious over the formulation comprising at least 0.2% (w/v) of one or more perfume ingredients having a sufficiently rapid bactericidal activity against gram-negative bacteria ([0058], TABLES 2, 4-8, and 10), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claim 7, the limitation of an additional agent active against gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria would have been obvious over the additional agents such as triclosan or other phenolic biocides ([0001], [0046], [0081]-[0082], TABLE 4, claims 4 and 15), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claim 8, the limitation of a chelating agent would have been obvious over the chelating agents such as EDTA and CDTA ([0023], [0049], [0080], [0082], TABLES 6, 7, and 9, claims 2 and 14), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claims 9-11, the limitations of the perfume ingredients would have been obvious over the essential oils including peppermint, and perfume ingredients including 3-(4-methyl-3-cyclohexenyl)-butanol ([0018], [0043], [0059], [0060], [0095], claims 1, 11, 13, and 14), and 5-heptyldihydro-2(3H)-furanone ([0043], [0059], [0099], claim 11), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claim 12, the limitation of a solvent would have been obvious over the dipropylene glycol solvent (TABLE 2, Example 6 – [0130]-[0131]), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claim 13, the limitation of chelators would have been obvious over the chelating agents such as EDTA and CDTA ([0023], [0049], [0080], [0082], TABLES 6, 7, and 9, claims 2 and 14), and the limitation of essential oils would have been obvious over the essential oils including peppermint ([0010]), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claim 14, the limitation of a malodor neutralizing system would have been obvious over the neutralizing solution ([0058], [0089], [0108]-[0110]), as taught by Natsch.
Regarding instant claims 15 and 16, the limitations of a consumer product (instant claim 15) and a method for eliminating the number of microbes on a surface or body part (instant claim 16) would have been obvious over the wash formulations including liquid soaps (Abstract), consumer products, personal care products, wash formulations for the human or animal body, in particular the skin, scalp or hair, hand wash formulations, aqueous soap formulations, shower gels, shampoos, pet shampoos, disinfectant formulations for disinfection and/or cleaning of inert surfaces, formulations for oral application, oral care products, mouth wash, tooth paste ([0041], [0085]-[0086], TABLE 2, claims 10, and 13-16), as taught by Natsch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Pages 6-8, filed 03/31/26) with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsch (US 2008/0118591 A1), as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-16 above, in view of Heckert et al. (US 4,005,028 – “Heckert”), as they now apply to claims 1-16, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Natsch explains that suitable hydrotropes have the ability to solubilize antibacterial perfume ingredients, the compositions of Heckert do not contain antibacterial perfume ingredients, and the hydrotrope of Heckert is necessarily not used to solubilize an antibacterial perfume ingredient.
This is not persuasive because Heckert is not relied upon for teaching the use of hydrotrope for solubilizing an antibacterial perfume ingredient. The primary reference, Natsch, teaches this limitation ([0018]). Heckert is relied upon to cure the deficiency in Natsch regarding using less than 4% hydrotrope. The combination of Natsch and Heckert is proper since Heckert also teaches the inclusion of perfumes in the exemplified detergent compositions (Examples VII, VIII, IX, X, and XII). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Natsch and Heckert because both references teach liquid wash compositions containing perfumes that are used by hand for cleaning and contain the same hydrotropes toluene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate or xylene sulfonate, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Applicant argues that there would have been no reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the present claims because antibacterial perfume ingredients are chemically and functionally distinct from the ingredients in Heckert’s compositions. Applicant argues that Heckert’s compositions include organosilanes, which are known in the art to be poorly water-soluble and chemically unstable in water, and in contrast, antibacterial perfume ingredients are generally carbon-based compounds with structural features that enable interaction with olfactory receptors and antibacterial properties. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that hydrotropes will interact differently with organosilanes than with antibacterial perfume ingredients due to these structural and functional differences.
This is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the same hydrotropes taught by both references as solubilizers for perfume ingredients, which are taught by both Natsch and Heckert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in solubilizing various perfume ingredients including the antibacterial perfume ingredients taught by Natsch.
Therefore, the obviousness rejection of 12/31/25 is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights