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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 01/13/2025 and 01/30/2025 have been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy of the IDS is included with the present Office Action.
Claim Status
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (disinfectant composition containing thymol and copper sulfate) and the species of a) citric acid as the acid cleaner, b) sodium carbonate basic cleaner; c) Sodium Lauryl Sulfate as the surfactant present; d) hydrated dextrate (aka EMDEX) as the further ingredients present and e) tablet form in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that the species of powder form will be rejoined with tablet since compressed powders form tablets.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that each of the groups require thymol, copper sulfate with acidic and basic cleaner in the recited ratios. Because a formulation is common to all three Groups, a search directed to Group I would necessarily encompass the methods of Gorup II-III. Regarding the species, Applicants argue that the species are functionally similar such that a search for one would overlap in scope as a search for another.
This is not found persuasive because per MPEP 806.05(h), the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process and the product as claimed can be made by another process. Restriction is proper for the reasons provided in restriction requirement mailed on 04/29/2026. Furthermore, there is search burden in view of the separate classification of each group which demonstrates different field of searching is required. In addition, each of the recited species would require different search queries which may not necessarily yield the same results. For example, hydrated dextrate is not structurally related to polyethylene glycol. Similarly, citric acid is not structurally related to alternative acids such as glycolic acid. Therefore, each of the recited species would require a different field of search.
Claims 6, 10, 25-26 and 28-29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-5, 9,12,14,15, and 17-20 are under current examination as directed to the elected species.
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 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, 3-4, 9,12,14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddon (United States patent 5958334-see IDS), Weiss et al. (United States Patent Publication 20090232905) and Bernhardt et al. (United States Patent Publication 20100184855).
The instant claims are being examined to the extent of the elected invention to a stable anhydrous disinfectant cleaner in solid form comprising thymol disinfectant, citric acid as acid cleaner, copper sulfate second disinfectant, sodium lauryl sulfate surfactant, sodium carbonate basic cleaner, and in powder or tablet form.
Haddon teaches stable cleaning compositions having sodium carbonate effervescent agent, citric acid, sodium lauryl sulfate surfactant, and from 0.1-99% by weight of antimicrobial agents including paraben, see claims 1-12 and column 8, lines 32-42. The composition can be in tablet form or powder, see claim 22 and column 21, lines1-11. Given the suggestion for antimicrobial present, the composition is capable of performing the intended use of disinfection. The effervescent tablets get added to the toilet aqueous medium however the tablets are in powder form and anhydrous, see entire document. The tablets are not tacky since they can be dry powder form and avoid water in the composition until they perform their intended use of cleaning the toilet. According to Haddon, the acid and basic cleaner compounds can be present in amounts greater than the sodium lauryl sulfate surfactant as the acid and basic cleaner can both comprise a minimum amount of 5% by weight with surfactant at 0.1% by weight, see claim 9. Since the surfactant which includes fatty acids and foaming agent which could be a fatty acid are present in 0.1 or 1% respectively, the composition can be substantially free of fatty acids, see column 7 lines 5-49 and column 5, lines 10-65. The cleaning composition is suitable for cleaning toilets.
Haddon does not teach thymol as the antimicrobial present from about 1% to about 5% by weight or from 4-5% by weight, a ratio of first (thymol) and second disinfectant (copper sulfate) from 10:1 to 5:1 or form 7:1 to 6:1 wherein the second disinfectant is copper sulfate.
However, Weiss teaches disinfectant cleaning compositions which comprise thymol present at 3-7% by weight in thyme oil in order to provide antimicrobial activity, see paragraphs [0009] and [0032] and [0036]. Copper sulfate can be added as a transition metal, see claims 1 and 18 and paragraph [0046].The transition metal which includes copper sulfate is known to enhance the efficiency of thyme oil by catalyzing the disinfecting and sanitizing properties of thyme oil, see paragraphs [0009], and [0046].The thyme oil can be present at about 0.6% by weight and the copper sulfate from 0.001-0.10% by weight, see claim 1. Since the thymol is 3-7% by weight of a 0.6% by weight thyme oil product the amount of thymol in thyme oil can be from 0.018-0.042% by weight. These amounts encompass a ratio of about 6:1 thymol to copper sulfate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to provide the thymol first disinfectant in thyme oil and copper sulfate second agent in order to catalyze the disinfecting and sanitizing properties of thyme oil which contains thymol.
Neither Haddon nor Weiss teach an amount of from 1-5% by weight or from 4-5% by weight thymol as the essential oil based on the weight of the composition.
However, Bernhardt et al. teach that cleaner compositions can comprise essential oil disinfectant such as thymol present from 0.006-15% by weight wherein essential oils also impart pleasant scent to the composition without the need for fragrances, see abstract and paragraphs [0135]-[0136].
It would have been prima facie obvious to substitute the antimicrobial of Haddon for thymol in order to provide suitable disinfecting and fragrance properties to the product and to provide thymol and copper sulfate in ratios inclusive of 6:1 in order to improve the disinfecting efficacy that thyme oil provides.
In regards to the ratio of the thymol to the copper sulfate, Haddon teaches their antimicrobial agent can be provided in any amount from 0.1-99% by weight, and Weiss teaches that copper sulfate improves the efficacy of thyme oil disinfectant wherein thyme oil contains thymol. MPEP 2144.05 teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Moreover, it is obvious to adjust the amount of thymol to achieve antimicrobial properties to the disinfectant composition as suggested by Bernhardt. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. At 417.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddon (United States patent 5958334), Weiss et al. (United States Patent Publication 20090232905) and Bernhardt et al. (United States Patent Publication 20100184855) as applied to all claims 1, 3-4, 9,12,14-15, 17-20 above, and further in view of Moore (United States Patent 9,701,931-see IDS).
The teachings of the modified Haddon are discussed above.
Haddon in particular teaches that the composition can be in tablet form or powder, see claim 22 and column 21, lines1-11, however Haddon does not teach formulating tablets from about 2 to 9 grams in weight.
Moore teaches antimicrobial disinfectant compositions, see abstract. Disinfectant formulations can comprise tablets that are weighed to about 1 to 30 grams, see column 25 lines 1-16. Tablets can be made to any size for surface sanitizing when added to solution for spraying, see column 28 at lines 34-41.
It would have been prima facie obvious to provide the disinfectant tablets of Haddon in amounts from 1g to 30g as these sizes are suitable for disinfecting hard surfaces including toilets (column 27 at line 18 of Moore). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Haddon teaches disinfecting toilets and Moore teaches that disinfectant compositions for hard surfaces including toilets can be compressed and tableted into a suitable range which includes 1g to 30mg.
Claims 5 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddon (United States patent 5958334), Weiss et al. (United States Patent Publication 20090232905) and Bernhardt et al. (United States Patent Publication 20100184855) as applied to all claims 1, 3-4, 9,12,14-15, 17-20 above, and further in view of Denutte et al. (EP1123376) and PE Pharma Excipients (EMDEX®: The Multi-Functional Excipient for Multiple Formulations- 02/2020).
The teachings of the modified Hadden are discussed above. The modified Haddon does not teach the presence of a binder for the tablets including hydrated dextrate (also called EMDEX-see instant spec at paragraph 0026).
Denutte et al. teach cleaning compositions which comprise tablet form, see abstract and paragraph [0189]. The tablets can comprise an effervescent source of citric acid and carbonate that are compressed optionally with a binder, see paragraph [0183].
The binder for compression in Denutte is not taught as hydrated dextrate.
PE Pharma Excipients teaches that EMDEX is a directly compressible tablet binder showing superior flow, compaction and tablet robustness, see page 3.
It would have therefore been obvious to provide the hard surface cleanser tablets of Haddon with EMDEX binder in order to improve compaction and tablet robustness.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as binders are taught in Denutte to be added to compress effervescent hard cleaning formulations containing carbonate and citric acid and Haddon teaches hard surface cleaning formulations.
Conclusion
Currently, no claims are allowed and all claims are rejected.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)270-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:30pm EST.
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 at 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.
/SARAH ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights