DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 19-24 and 31-33 are pending in the instant application. Claims 23-24 and 31 have been withdrawn based upon Restriction/Election as discussed below. Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 19-22, 32 and 33 are being examined on the merits in the instant application.
Advisory Notice
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I drawn to compositions of matter, currently claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 19-22, 32 and 33 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I, II and III do share a special technical feature over the Wang et al. reference.
Applicant particularly argues that: “The mixture that the Office is referring to is not a cleaning mixture. Instead, it is simply a test that is conducted to measure the photothermal effect of various different samples of the coating. Wang describes that the MnO2 nanosheets are scraped off the titanium plates and dissolved in deionized water. This is because Wang is investigating the photothermal effect of the MnO2 independently from the Ti plate. In contrast, the other tests in Wang relate to measuring the photothermal effect of different coatings on a titanium plate (MnO2-Ti, CS@MnO2-Ti and 5-Ag/CS@MnO2-Ti). Hence, when the 5-Ag/CS@MnO2-Ti sample is tested, the silver nanoparticles and MnO2 particles are not freely dispersed or dissolved in a solution (since they are deposited as a coating on the titanium plate). Such a mixture would not function as a cleaning mixture that is capable of removing biofilm from surfaces because it is simply a solution containing an undissolved coated titanium plate. This is understood when Wang discusses that the surface temperature of the plates is monitored during the test (see section 2.3).” (p. 8, 2nd paragraph).
In response the examiner maintains that the preamble recitation of “cleaning solution” is defined by components recited in the claims. It is improper to import limitations from the Specification during prosecution (MPEP §2111.01(II)). Even so, a reading of the Specification makes clear that Applicant regard a cleaning mixture as defined in claim 1 “According to various, but not necessarily all, embodiments there is provided a cleaning mixture for removing biofilm from surfaces, the mixture consisting of: silver particles and/or particles surface modified with silver; manganese dioxide particles and/or particles surface modified with manganese oxide; and water.” (p. 3, lines 1-4). And further that: “Examples of the disclosure provide a cleaning mixture for removing biofilm from surfaces, the mixture comprising: silver particles and/or particles surface modified with silver; manganese dioxide particles and/or or particles surface modified with manganese oxide; and water.” (p. 5, lines 30-35).
Additionally, the examiner argues that instant claim 1 does not require that the “silver nanoparticles and MnO2 particles are […] freely dispersed or dissolved in a solution”. Applicant obviously agrees with this as New claim 32, expressly recites this limitation. Therefore, Applicants argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues that: “Moreover, Wang states that suitable antibacterial activity is only achieved when the coating has been heated in the presence of silver ions (see abstract). Specifically, Figure 4B of Wang demonstrates that even at the highest concentration of silver particles, only 24% bacterial kill is achieved (blue bars), leaving the remaining 76% alive. Wang explicitly states "this lower bacteria killing efficacy cannot prevent bacterial infection," (p15020, column 2, lines 7-8). Instead, Wang teaches that the particles require activation in order to serve as a cleaning mixture (Figure 4B pink bars). A mixture comprising the coated 5-Ag/CS@MnO2-Ti plate and water is therefore not intrinsically capable of removing biofilm from surfaces.” (p. 8, 3rd paragraph).
In response the examiner argues that the disclosure of Wang et al. is clearly directed at treating - “A bacterial infection on the surface of medical apparatus and instruments as well as artificial implants is threatening human health greatly. Antibiotics and traditional bacterial-killing agents, even silver nanoparticles, can induce bacterial resistance during long-term interaction with bacteria. Hence, rapid surface sterilization and prevention of bacterial infection in the long term are urgent for biomedical devices, especially for artificial implant materials. Herein, a hybridized chitosan (CS), silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), and MnO2 nanosheets coating was designed on the surface of titanium plates, which can ensure the implants a rapid and highly effective antibacterial efficacy of 99.00% against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and 99.25% against Escherichia coli (E. coli) within 20 min of 808 nm near-infrared light (NIR) irradiation.” (abstract). As previously noted Wang et al. teaches compositions including “silver particles and/or particles surface modified with silver; manganese dioxide particles and/or particles surface modified with manganese oxide; and water.” (instant claim 1). Therefore, the compositions of Wang et al. would have been capable of removing a biofilm consistent with Applicants claims.
Applicant further argues that: “Wang makes no reference to "removing biofilm from surfaces." In fact, there is no reference to biofilm at all in Wang. The tests described in Wang use planktonic bacteria as opposed to bacteria within a biofilm. It is widely known by those skilled in the art that microbial cells growing in biofilms are physiologically distinct from the planktonic cells of the same organism. For example, it has been shown that bacteria within a biofilm can be 10 to 1000 times more difficult to remove than planktonic bacteria (see page 1 lines 18-19 of the specification as filed). Biofilm removal presents different technical requirements than planktonic bacterial kill. Accordingly, Wang's evaluation of planktonic bacteria does not describe or demonstrate removal of biofilm from a surface.” (paragraph bridging pp. 8-9). And that: “In contrast, the cleaning mixture of the present application removes biofilm from surfaces, and is approximately three times more effective as a cleaning solution compared to the coating described in Wang (see FIG. 2 of the present application).” (p. 9, 2nd paragraph).
In response the examiner argues that treating medical apparatus and instruments, as clearly described by Wang et al. in the abstract (lines 1-6) would have implied removal of a biofilm (MPEP §2144.01). In response to Applicants pointing to the disclosure of the instant Specification, at issue is the claims an not the Specification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 23-24 and 31 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/27/2026.
Priority
The instant Application is a 371 of PCT/GB2022/052505 filed 10/04/2022 and claims priority to United Kingdom 2114645.1 filed 10/13/2021.
The U.S. effective filing date has been determined to be 10/13/2021, the filing date of the document United Kingdom 2114645.1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 04/11/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Applicants only Abstract is the document WO 2023/062337 A1. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Applicants only Abstract is the document WO 2023/062337 A1, which abstract is too short, and is not presented on a separate sheet from, apart from any other text. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 19-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2-6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 19-22 each recite the limitation "The mixture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 19-22 each recite the limitation "the silver particles" in lines 1-2. Claims 6 and 8 each depend from claim 1 which recites “silver particles and/or particles surface modified with silver” (in line 3), and in the embodiment were only “particles surface modified with silver”, claims 6 and 8 each lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claims 6 & 8 should properly depend from claim 5. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wang et al. (“Rapid and Highly Effective Noninvasive Disinfection by Hybrid Ag/CS@MnO2 Nanosheets Using Near-Infrared Light, 2019, ACS; ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Vol. 11, pp. 15014-15027).
Applicant Claims
Applicant claims a cleaning mixture for removing biofilm from surfaces, the mixture comprising: silver nanoparticles and/or particles modified with silver; manganese dioxide particles and/or particles surface modified with manganese oxide; and water (instant claim 1).
Disclosure of the Prior Art
Wang et al. teaches that: "Herein, a hybridized chitosan (CS), silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), and MnO₂ nanosheets coating was designed on the surface of titanium plates, which can ensure the implants a rapid and highly effective antibacterial efficacy of 99.00% against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and 99.25% against Escherichia coli (E. coli) within 20 min of 808 nm near-infrared light (NIR) irradiation." (title, abstract, see whole document).
Wang et al. discloses that: “In the present work, a hybrid surface coating of 2D MnO₂ nanosheets and chitosan (CS)-modified Ag nanoparticles was constructed on metallic Ti plates (labeled as Ag/CS@MnO₂-Ti) using a concisely hydrothermal synthesis method and subsequent electrostatic binding. As illustrated in Scheme 1, after a low concentration of Ag⁺ was locally released from this coating, the followed local hyperthermia produced from NIR light-irradiated MnO₂ nanosheets would make those bacteria inactive and increase the permeability of the bacterial membrane, which made them more easily suffer from attack of a pre-existing small amount of released Ag⁺, finally causing damage of the bacterial membrane, proteins leakage, and a decrease of ATP level. Meanwhile, during this course MnO₂ nanosheets could react with GSH at the broken membrane in acidic environment, in which MnO₂ would be degraded into Mn²⁺, while GSH could be oxidized into glutathione disulfide (GSSG). This course could be accelerated with the assistance of hyperthermia according to our results. Oxidation of GSH in bacteria could induce the disorder of the intrinsic balance and consequently accelerate bacterial death more easily. Hence, it could be speculated that the synergistic action of hyperthermia, Ag+, and MnO²-induced GSH oxidation could endow the hybrid coating with a superior antibacterial efficacy in a short time.” [emphasis added] (p. 15015, col. 2, 2ⁿᵈ paragraph)(instant claims 1, 5, 11, 16, 19; capping agent is chitosan). Regarding the size Wang et al. discloses “the size of AgNPs nanoparticles ranged from 10 to 25 nm without aggregation” (p. 15018, col. 2, lines 6-7), and discloses the MnO2 has a thickness of about 404 nm and the MnO₂ hybrid nanosheets have a thickness of about 570 nm (p. 15017, Figure 1, (C) & (H), respectively)(instant claims 8 & 14).
Wang et al. discloses that: “To determine the thermal conversion efficiency of MnO₂ hybrid nanosheets on Ti plates, the nanosheets on the Ti plates were scraped off and collected, and then the powders were dissolved in deionized water homogeneously using ultrasonic dispersion (the concentration was fixed to 200 µg/mL). Then the solutions were irradiated under 0.5 W/cm² NIR light of 808 nm.” [emphasis added]( p. 15016, col. 1, §2.3, 1st paragraph)(instant claim 33). And that: "The photothermal tests of MnO₂-Ti, CS@MnO₂-Ti, and 5-Ag/CS@MnO₂-Ti were conducted with the same process for MnO₂ nanosheets. Briefly, different samples underwent treatments of immersing in 200 µL of PBS solution in 96-well plates and following 20 min exposure to light. Surface temperatures of plates were monitored using an infrared thermal imaging device with a time interval of 1 min." (p. 15016, col. 1, §2.3, 2nd paragraph). Wang et al. does not expressly disclose "A cleaning mixture for removing a biofilm from surfaces" however the claimed constituents are all present (i.e. "A cleaning mixture") therefore the compositions would have been capable of removing a biofilm from surfaces of a medical device such as a channel of an endoscope (instant claims 1 & 33).
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Krishnaraj et al. (“Plant extract-mediated biogenic synthesis of silver, manganese dioxide, silver-doped manganese dioxide nanoparticles and their antibacterial activity against food- and water-borne pathogens,” 2016, SPRINGER, Bioprocess Biosystems Engineering, Vol. 39, pp. 759–772).
Applicant Claims
Applicant claims a cleaning mixture for removing biofilm from surfaces, the mixture comprising: silver nanoparticles and/or particles modified with silver; manganese dioxide particles and/or particles surface modified with manganese oxide; and water (instant claim 1).
Disclosure of the Prior Art
Krishnaraj et al. discloses plant-mediated silver, manganese dioxide, and silver-doped MnO2NPs and their antibacterial activity (title, see whole document). Krishnaraj et al. discloses that: “Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), manganese dioxide nanoparticles (MnO2NPs) and silver-doped manganese dioxide nanoparticles (Ag-doped MnO2NPs) were synthesized by simultaneous green chemistry reduction approach. Aqueous extract from the leaves of medicinally important plant Cucurbita pepo was used as reducing and capping agents. Various characterization techniques were carried out to affirm the formation of nanoparticles. HRTEM analysis confirmed the size of nanoparticles in the range of 15–70 nm and also metal doping was confirmed through XRD and EDS analyses. FT-IR analysis confirmed that the presence of biomolecules in the aqueous leaves extract was responsible for nanoparticles synthesis. Further, the concentration of metals and their doping in the reaction mixture was achieved by ICP–MS. The growth curve and well diffusion study of synthesized nanoparticles were performed against food- and water-borne Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial pathogens. The mode of interaction of nanoparticles on bacterial cells was demonstrated through Bio-TEM analysis. Interestingly, AgNPs and Ag-doped MnO2 NPs showed better antibacterial activity against all the tested bacterial pathogens; however, MnO2NPs alone did not show any antibacterial properties. Hence, AgNPs and Ag-doped MnO2 NPs synthesized from aqueous plant leaves extract may have important role in controlling various food spoilage caused by bacteria.” (abstract)(instant claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19).
Krishnaraj et al. discloses “Synthesized nanoparticles were subjected to centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 20 min and the resulting pellet was dissolved in 1 ml of deionized water.” (p. 762, col. 1, lines 1-3)(instant claim 32).
Krishnaraj. does not expressly disclose "A cleaning mixture for removing a biofilm from surfaces" however the claimed constituents are all present (i.e. "A cleaning mixture") therefore the compositions would have been capable of removing a biofilm from surfaces of a medical device such as a channel of an endoscope (instant claims 1 & 33).
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 19 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILBERT (US 6,004,510; published December, 1999).
Applicants Claims
Applicant claims a cleaning mixture for removing biofilm from surfaces, the mixture comprising: silver nanoparticles and/or particles modified with silver; manganese dioxide particles and/or particles surface modified with manganese oxide; and water (instant claim 1). Applicant further claims the cleaning mixture further contains hydrogen peroxide (instant claims 2-5). Applicant further claims the cleaning mixture comprises silver particles (instant claim 5) at a concentration of from 0.1 mg/mL to 1 mg/mL (instant claim 6) and having a hydrodynamic diameter of up to 1 micron (instant claim 8). Applicant further claims the cleaning mixture comprises manganese dioxide particles (instant claim 11) at a concentration of from 0.0002 mg/mL to 0.005 mg/mL (instant claim 12) and having a hydrodynamic diameter of up to 1 micron (instant claim 14).
Determination of the scope
and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01)
GILBERT teaches compositions and process for cleaning surfaces by use of a catalyst at the surface (title, see whole document), and particularly: “The disclosure relates to a process for the treatment of a surface with a hygiene agent which can include the steps of: (a) providing at the surface a non-photochemical catalyst (such as a transition metal compound) which catalyses the formation of the hygiene agent from one or more precursors, whereby the catalyst becomes deposited at the surface, and, (b) subsequently treating the surface with a treatment agent (such as a solution of hydrogen peroxide) having the or each hygiene agent precursor, such that the hygiene agent is generated at the surface.” (abstract).
GILBERT teaches that: “Suitable hygiene agent precursors include peroxy
compounds, […].” and particularly “Suitable peroxy compounds include, hydrogen peroxide, […].” (col. 4, lines 18-19 & 23)(instant claim 2). GILBERT teaches Suitable catalysts for the decomposition of peroxy compounds include transition metals and compounds thereof. It is preferred to use compounds of the transition metals rather than the metals per se. Preferred transition metals are […] manganese […] silver […] more particularly manganese dioxide […].” (col. 4, lines 34-38 & 41)(instant claims 1, 5, 11 & 19).
GILBERT teaches that: “We have found that the provision of the catalyst at the surface to be disinfected enables effective results to be obtained with very low concentrations of the treatment agent and significantly lower levels than would be required without the use of the catalyst. Thus, for example, in the case where the treatment agent comprises hydrogen peroxide and the catalyst comprises a transition metal, we have established that substantial removal of biofilm may be achieved using hydrogen peroxide concentrations of less than 3 mg/ml. Such concentrations were totally ineffective for removing and disinfecting similar biofilms from surfaces not provided with a catalyst. It is therefore a significant advantage of the invention that lower concentrations of the precursor may be used, particularly, for example, in surgical or medical applications.” (col. 4, line 56 through col. 5, line 3). GILBERT teaches that: “Generally, the concentration of the hygiene agent precursor will be from 10 ppm to 40% w/v.” (instant claims 3-4, amount of hydrogen peroxide). 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.”
GILBERT teaches that: “It is particularly preferred that the treatment agent is a liquid which comprises an aqueous carrier and one or more precursors of the or each hygiene agent in solution. It is preferred that the one or more precursors of the or each hygiene agent forms a stable solution or suspension at a level of up to 1 % in water, i.e. gaseous precursors are generally avoided and solid or liquid precursors are preferred.” (col. 5, lines 41-47)(instant claim 1, water). GILBERT teaches the inclusion of other components including “Metal ion sequestrants, including ethylenediamine-tetraacetates, […].” (instant claim 16, capping agent).
GILBERT teaches that: “Applications in disinfection of medical, surgical or dental apparatus, equipment, facilities or supplies e.g. provision of the catalyst on a surface of a catheter, contact lens, surgical dressing or surgical instrument (e.g. an endoscope) so as to permit ready disinfection thereof.” (col. 7, lines 35-39)(instant claim 33).
Ascertainment of the difference between
the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the rejected claims and the teachings of GILBERT is that GILBERT does not expressly teach a range amount of the catalyst, or the size of the silver and manganese dioxide particles.
However, GILBERT does teach Examples in Table 1 including Cu-catalyst and Co-catalyst in amounts of 374 and 5 micrograms/mL (0.374 mg/mL and 0.005 mg/mL) which encompasses the ranges of instant claims 6 & 12.
Regarding the size instant claims 8 & 14 claim a hydrodynamic diameter of up to 1 micron which clearly encompasses any size lower than 1 micron which particle size is clearly encompassed by the teachings of GILBERT.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a biocidal mixture including silver and/or manganese dioxide particles in combination with hydrogen peroxide and water, as suggested by GILBERT, for disinfection of a medical device such as an endoscope. Additionally, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine of silver and manganese dioxide because it is generally considered to be prima facie obvious to combine compounds, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition that is to be used for an identical purpose. The motivation for combining them flows from their having been used individually in the prior art, and from the being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose. As shown by the recited teachings, instant claims are no more than the combination of conventional components of disinfection compositions. It therefore follows that the instant claims define prima facie obvious subject matter. Cf. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 848, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
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 because it would have required no more than an ordinary level of skill in the art to produce a mixture of known components. 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.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
Claims 20-22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILBERT as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 19 and 33 above, and further in view of PALZA (US 2016/0150793 A1; published June, 2016).
Applicants Claims
Applicant claims a cleaning mixture for removing biofilm from surfaces, the mixture comprising: silver nanoparticles and/or particles modified with silver; manganese dioxide particles and/or particles surface modified with manganese oxide; and water (instant claim 1). Applicant further claims the cleaning mixture further contains hydrogen peroxide (instant claims 2-5). Applicant further claims the cleaning mixture comprises silver particles (instant claim 5) at a concentration of from 0.1 mg/mL to 1 mg/mL (instant claim 6) and having a hydrodynamic diameter of up to 1 micron (instant claim 8). Applicant further claims the cleaning mixture comprises manganese dioxide particles (instant claim 11) at a concentration of from 0.0002 mg/mL to 0.005 mg/mL (instant claim 12) and having a hydrodynamic diameter of up to 1 micron (instant claim 14).
Determination of the scope
and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01)
GILBERT teaches compositions and process for cleaning surfaces by use of a catalyst at the surface, as discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
Ascertainment of the difference between
the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the rejected claims and the teachings of GILBERT is that GILBERT does not expressly teach a range amount of the catalyst.
PALZA teaches an additive with biocidal properties based on an active agent with antimicrobial and antifouling properties, wherein the additive corresponds to a supporting material, inert substrate or carrier, which has been modified with antimicrobial agents (title, abstract, see whole document). PALZA teaches that: “Unlike the previously cited documents, in the present invention, the biocidal additive is synthesized through a process including a reducing agent, and also, in the present invention the biocidal agent is essentially forming nano structures on the external surface of the support or inert carrier, and similar to the prior art, can also be ionically adsorbed inside the support or carrier. The obtained additive possesses biocidal activity.” ([0015]).
PALZA teaches that: “In the biocidal additive of the present invention, the biocide agent forms nanostructures on the external surface of the zeolite, while in the conventional biocidal additive, the biocidal active agent is ionically adsorbed inside the zeolite.” ([0020])(instant claims 20-22), and that: “of a micro metric zeolite (approximate size of 1 µm) with the biocidal agent. The active biocide is found as copper nanostructures (approximate size 10 nm) on the external zeolite surface.” ([0018])(instant claims 8 & 14). PALZA teaches the biocidal agent modifying the support material is selected from silver manganese and their oxides, among others ([0026]).
PALZA teaches that: “The biocidal additive has a large biocidal surface area per volume unit and mass, decreasing unprotected zones with no biocide, and granting stability when dispersed in low density solutions or matrices or precursors. The additive does not present changes in coloring in time. It is resistant to outdoors, heat, and light, and has a good processability.” (instant claim 33).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a biocidal mixture including silver and/or manganese dioxide particles in combination with hydrogen peroxide and water, as discussed above, and further to utilize the zeolite biocidal additive of PALZA in combination with hydrogen peroxide, as suggested by GILBERT, for disinfection of a medical device such as an endoscope.
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.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
The
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deshmukh et al. (“Silver nanoparticles as an effective disinfectant: A review,” 2019, ELSEVIER; Materials Science & Engineering C, Vol. 97, pp. 954-965) is cited as teaching the use of silver as disinfectant (see whole document).
Conclusion
Claims XXX are pending and have been examined on the merits.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to. Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1); and claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 19-22, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. No claims allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN A GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5868. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5 PM PST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/IVAN A GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/TIGABU KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights