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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a composition comprising an alkyl amino acid ester, classified in C11D 1/62.
II. Claims 10-20, drawn to a composition comprising caprylic acid, classified in C11D 3/042.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related compositions. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The compositions contain different ingredients. Prior art that will reject group I will not necessarily reject group II and vice versa.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Matthew Todd on September 14, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Scheunemann et al, US 2018/0353418.
Scheunemann et al teach a shampoo comprising 0.5% citric acid, 0.4% ethyl lauroyl arginate, cationic polymer, perfume and the balance water (¶292, example 2), wherein these compositions have a pH between 4.2 to 5.8 (¶169). With respect to the surfactant required in claim 1, the examiner notes that ethyl lauroyl arginate is itself a cationic surfactant. As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al, US 2023/0263161.
Zhou et al teach a disinfectant composition comprising an organic acid and an amino acid-based surfactant (¶234, example 73). This example does not contain hydrogen peroxide and demonstrates the synergistic antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of the organic acid and an amino acid-based surfactant. Suitable organic acids of the invention include citric and caprylic (claim 4), present in an amount of from 0.1 to 15% (claim 3), the amino acid-based surfactant is present in an amount of from 0.05 to 5% (claim 7), nonionic surfactants used in an amount of 0.01% are preferred in these compositions (¶194, example 22), and these compositions have a pH as high as 5 (claim 14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a composition comprising citric acid, caprylic acid, a nonionic surfactant, and an amino acid-based surfactant in the proportions claimed as these acids and surfactants are taught as suitable by the reference and the proportions of the reference overlaps the proportions claimed.
With respect to claim 4, polyacrylate polymers are suitable chelants and anti-scalants of the invention (¶68).
With respect to claims 5, 7, and 8, these compositions may be applied directly to the hard surface (spray) (¶7) or impregnated in a wipe and used on hard surfaces including dishes and cooking surfaces (¶144).
With respect to claim 6, anionic surfactants are optional components of the invention (¶6).
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modak et al, US 2014/0322147.
Modak et al teach an antimicrobial composition comprising up to 1% citric/benzoic acid, up to 0.2% ethyl lauroyl arginate, as little as 0.01% nonionic surfactant, menthol, peppermint oil, and the balance water (¶275). The examiner maintains the presence of an acid with no sources of alkalinity will result in a pH within the range claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a composition comprising citric acid, a nonionic surfactant, and ethyl lauroyl alginate in the proportions claimed as these components are taught as essential by the reference and the proportions of the reference overlaps the proportions claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights