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 § 112
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 and 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 3 recite “wherein a 1 wt % aqueous solution of the solid effervescent cleaning composition provides at least 3 log reduction for both gram positive[sic] and gram-negative bacteria.” Determining antimicrobial efficacy by the log reduction of Gram-positive or Gram-negative bacteria, several critical variables such as contact time should be specified. Otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the log reduction value of an antimicrobial agent.
Claim 3 is also vague and indefinite as it is not clear whether the wherein clause of claim 3 excludes the antimicrobial compound from the composition of claim 1. Claim 3 recites, “wherein in the absence of the antimicrobial compound a 1 wt % aqueous solution of the solid effervescent cleaning composition does not provide at least a 3-log reduction for gram negative bacteria.” Since claim 3 depends on claim 1 which affirmatively requires at least one antimicrobial agent, the limitation is ambiguous and confusing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Since claim 3 depends on claim 1 which affirmatively requires at least one antimicrobial agent, removing that requirement in the dependent claim improperly broadens the scope of the base claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 5-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over He (CN 109234089 A, published on November 6, 2018) (“He” hereunder) as evidenced by Greaves (US 20170360678 A1, published on December 21, 2017).
Claim 1 is directed to a solid effervescent cleaning composition comprising:
one or more acids; a gas generator; wherein a 1 wt. % aqueous solution of the solid cleaning composition has a pH in a range of 4 to 9; and at least one antimicrobial compound.
He discloses an antibacterial cleansing effervescent tablet comprising an effervescent composition comprising an acid source such as citric acid or sulfamic acid, etc., and an alkali source such as sodium carbonate (gas generator) and a bactericide. See translation, abstract and p. 3, lines 7-11. The reference teaches that the composition is designed to provide a neutral pH to avoid damages to user’s hands. See Examples 1 and 2, p 7, Advantages no. 2. See present claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11.
Regarding claim 9, He discloses example formulations comprising triclosan, which is known to be water insoluble. See Greaves, [0004].
Regarding claim 12, He further teaches that the tablet comprises sodium polyacrylate and acrylic acid-maleic acid copolymer.
Regarding claim 13, Example 2 employes polyethylene glycol.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claims 1, 5-9 and 11-13 as above, and further in view of Tinwala et al. (US 20200345005 A1, published on November 5, 2020) (“Tinwala” hereunder).
Regarding claim 10, although He fails to teach a powder composition, Tinwala discloses that providing a solid disinfectant composition in the form of powder or tablet is old and well known. See [0073]. The reference teaches that powder can be dissolved by user with water to make a liquid disinfectant. Thus, formulating the solid composition of He to powder form to make and use a disinfectant solution would have been prima facie obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claims 1, 5-9 and 11-13 as above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 102419496 B1, published on July 11, 2022) and Tinwala.
Regarding claim 14, He teaches further adding to the tablet formulation surfactants (lauryl sodium sulfate, etc). The reference fails to teach colorants and fragrance.
Tinwala teaches that dyes are common additives used in disinfectant products. See [0049]. The reference also teaches using dyes to visualize coverage or pH sensitive dyes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of He and add dyes in the composition as motivated by Tinwala. As the latter teaches that including dyes in disinfectant products is an old and well-known practice, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining the teachings and producing a stable antimicrobial tablet with desired colors and/or enables the user to visualize coverage of the antimicrobial action.
Lee discloses a solid effervescent tablet comprising an organic acid, a blowing agent (gas generator), and at least one antibacterial agent. The reference teaches that mint or menthol is used as a fragrance/scent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of He and further add fragrance or scent as motivated by Lee with a reasonable expectation of successfully making an antimicrobial product with a desired scent.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claims 1, 5-9 and 11-13 as above, and further in view of Slaboden (US 20040141794 A).
He fails to teach the applicators described in claims 15-17.
Slaboden teaches a brush assembly comprising effervescent solid cleaning agents. The brush comprises a handle on one end and scrubbing portion, a substrate, which can be bristles, mesh, rag, or sponge. The reference teaches that the solid cleaning agent can be a ring or a donut-like shape and secured between the scrub materials. See abstract. The reference teaches that the brush assembly safely stores the cleaning agent and provide a predictable cleaning action. See [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of He by incorporating its solid cleaning agent into the brush assembly disclosed in Slaboden. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the latter provides an applicator that protects the user during cleaning, directly addressing He’s concern regarding the antimicrobial agent contacting the user’s skin. Furthermore, because He describes a solid effervescent tablet for disinfecting fabric, shoes and similar items, and the Slaboden brush is suitable for treating multiple types of substrates, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining the teachings of the references and making a convenient applicator to safely use the He invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of He.
Lee discloses a solid effervescent tablet comprising an organic acid such as citric acid, a blowing agent (gas generator), and at least one antibacterial agent such as thymol, eucalyptol and menthol. See translation, abstract; the present claims 1, 4 and 9.
Lee fails to teach the pH of the 1wt % aqueous solution of the solid product having a range of 4 to 9.
He, as discussed above, discloses an antibacterial cleansing effervescent tablet comprising an effervescent composition comprising an acid source such as citric acid and sulfamic acid; an alkali source such as sodium carbonate (gas generator); and a bactericide. See translation, abstract and p. 3, lines 7-11. The reference teaches that the composition is designed to provide a neutral pH to avoid damages to user’s hands. See Examples 1 and 2, p 7, Advantages no. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of Lee and adjust the pH of the composition to a neutral pH as motivated by He, which teaches that a mild pH is safer to skin. As both references are directed to an effervescent antimicrobial tablets comprising same acid source, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining the teachings of the references and producing a stable solid composition which can be more safely used.
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches using a binder such as polyethylene glycol. See Examples.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GINA JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)272-8605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5 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, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/GINA C JUSTICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights