DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 23-36 and 55-60 are pending in the present application. It is noted that Applicant did not include claims 46-54 in the claim listing. The examiner is construing those claim numbers as canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 23 recites “A method of method for”. It is recommended that Applicant delete “method of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 25 and 55 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.
Claim 25 recites “the surface or substrate is… fermentation equipment or surface, holding, processing, packaging, storing, transporting, preparing, cooking or serving the food item, plant item or the animal item”. It is unclear what is meant by a surface or substrate is “holding, processing, packaging, storing, transporting, preparing, cooking or serving the food item, plant item or the animal item”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 55 recites the broad recitation ≤ 1 wt.%, and the claim also recites or between about 0.1 wt% to about 1 wt%, or between about 0.5 wt% to about 1 wt% of the stabilizer, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-31, 33-34 and 55-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bui et al. (WO 2020/069078 A1).
Regarding claims 23-25 and 56, Bui et al. disclose a liquid disinfectant comprising hydrogen peroxide, an glacial acetic acid, peracetic acid, and a polymeric resin chelator ([0016]-[0017], [0021]; Claim 98). The composition, upon drying, do not leave a residue on the treated surface ([0008]). Bui et al. disclose a composition comprising glacial acetic acid, peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide and Aquivion (copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and sulfonyl fluoride vinyl ether) ([0060]; Examples 1-2).
Regarding claims 26-27, Bui et al. disclose that up to about 4 logs of the microbe or microorganism is inactivated in about 15 minutes or less (Claim 96).
Regarding claim 28, Bui et al. disclose that the composition is formulated for use in a sprayable composition; as well as a liquid applicator comprising at least one of a spray bottle, wipe, cloth, sponge, non-woven fabric, and woven fabric ([0117], [0262]; Claims 80, 93).
Regarding claims 29-30, Bui et al. disclose that the PAA concentration from 1,000 to 600 ppm ([0445]). Bui et al. disclose that the concentrate can subsequently be diluted with an appropriate amount of carrier (e.g., water) prior to use ([0115]).
Regarding claim 31, Bui et al. disclose that the polymeric resin functionalized with the sulfonic acid is crosslinked ([0171], [0183], [0192]; Claims 7, 19 and 27).
Regarding claims 33-34 and 57-58, Bui et al. disclose Aquivion (copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and sulfonyl fluoride vinyl ether) ([0060]; Examples 1-2).
Regarding claim 55, Bui et al. disclose that the hydrogen peroxide present in the composition can be from about 0.5 wt. % to about 30 wt. %, from about 0.5 wt. % to about 1.5 wt. %, from about 0.8 wt. % to about 1.2 wt. %, from about 0.9 wt. % to about 1.1 wt. %, from about 20 wt. % to about 30 wt. % and all ranges and values from about 0.5 wt. % to about 30 wt. %; the acetic acid present in the composition can be from about 1 wt. % to about 25 wt. %, from about 4 wt. % to about 20 wt. %, from about 4.5 wt. % to about 5.5 wt. %, from about 9 wt. % to about 17 wt. % and all ranges and values from about 1 wt. % to about 25 wt. %; the peracetic acid present in the composition can be from about 0.01 wt. % to about 25 wt. %, from about 0.05 wt. % to about 20 wt. %, from about 0.05 wt. % to about 0.1 wt. %, from about 0.05 wt.% to about 0.11 wt. %, from about 3.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % and all ranges and values from about 0.01 wt. % to about 25 wt. %; and the polymeric resin chelator present in the composition can be from about 0.1 wt. % to about 5 wt. %, from about 0.2 wt. % to about 2 wt. %, from about 0.5 wt. % to about 1.5 wt. % and all ranges and value from about 0.1 wt. % to about 5 wt. % ([0010]-[0014]).
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 32, 35-36 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bui et al. (WO 2020/069078 A1) as applied to claims 23-31, 33-34 and 55-58 above, further in view of Harrup et al. (US 6,576,335), Greenspan et al. (US 2,609,391), Brougham et al. (US 5,349,083), and Jadesjö et al. (WO 91/07375 A1).
Regarding claims 32, 35-36 and 59-60, Bui et al. do not explicitly disclose that the solid support comprises biochar, carbon, amorphous carbon, activated carbon, silica, silica gel, clay, silicon carbide, zeolite, ceramic or a combination thereof, as instantly claimed.
However, Harrup et al. teach silica-based solids functionalized with a chelating agent in order to remove metal ions from aqueous solutions (Abstract; Claims 1-16). Harrup et al. teach that the chelating agent may be any of a variety of chelating agents, which captures and chelates with the material of interest, preferably a metal ion (col. 3, ln. 10-21).
Regarding the chelant or chelant moiety being a phosphonic acid, phosphate, phosphonate and/or salt, aminocarboxylic acid chelant, heterocyclic dicarboxylic acid, pyridine carboxylic acid or combinations thereof, Greenspan et al. teach stabilization of peracid compositions by adding dipicolinic acid as a stabilizer (col. 1, ln. 1-5; col. 3, ln. 17 to col. 6, ln. 2; Claims 1-12). Brougham et al. teach a stabilized solution of peracetic acid, acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, dipicolinic acid, HEDP and water (Examples 1-4). Jadesjö et al. teach a synergistic combination of dipicolinic acid and at least one phosphonic acid having capability of complex binding divalent metal cations for the stabilization of peracetic acid (Abstract; pg. 2, ln. 7-19). Jadesjö et al. teach that an effective phosphonic acid includes 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid, and specifically teach compositions comprising dipicolinic acid and HEDP (pg. 2, ln. 24-31; Examples 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare a solid support, such as silica-based solids, functionalized with chelating agents, such as dipicolinic acid and HEDP, for the stabilization of peracids. Such would have been obvious because Bui et al. teach solid polymer resins having chelating properties can be used to stabilize peroxycarboxylic acids; Harrup et al. teach; and Greenspan et al., Brougham et al. and Jadesjö et al. teach that dipicolinic acid stabilizes peroxycarboxylic acid against undesired decomposition.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Sue Liu can be reached on (571) 272-5539. 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights