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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Brittain on 3/11/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the British application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “mena” in line 1 appears to be a typographical error of “mean”. 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.
Claim 13 is 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.
With regards to claim 13, “the air decontamination product” in lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis. It is taken to be referring to “the air decontamination formulation”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasz et al. (US 2007/0142260) (hereinafter Tasz) in view of Carr (US 2014/0363333).
With regards to claim 1, Tasz teaches a method of sanitizing air comprising generating dipropylene glycol in vapor form (abstract and para [0049]). Tasz does not specify the concentration fo the vapor released.
Carr teaches a propylene glycol air disinfectant and teaches releasing it into the environment at 20 ppm (para [0039]). Carr also teaches that the concentration is a balance between the concentration to achieve the desired disinfection and not too much to cause exposure issues.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of dipropylene glycol in the vapor produced in order to achieve the desired disinfection while avoiding exposure issues.
Since the combination teaches the same active ingredient in the same concentration range, it is taken that the method of sanitizing air does so in the same amount of time as the instant application (0.1 to 5 min).
With regards to claim 2, Tasz teaches the decontamination formulation comprises dipropylene glycol in an overlapping concentration, water, alcohol, and a propellant (at least claim 23).
The combination results in generating the claimed ppm dipropylene glycol in the vapor from the claimed solution.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasz et al. (US 2007/0142260) (hereinafter Tasz) in view of Carr (US 2014/0363333) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tasz et al. (US 2007/0194040) (hereinafter Tasz 2).
With regards to claim 3, Tasz teaches an aerosol air sanitizer (abstract and fig 1). Tasz teaches the decontamination formulation comprises dipropylene glycol in an overlapping concentration, water, alcohol, and a propellant (at least claim 23). The propellant is a hydrocarbon propellant that can be a blend of propane and butane the pressure of which is a result effective variable (para [0058]).
Tasz 2 teaches an air decontamination product containing an aerosol canister (1) comprising: a 2 piece mechanical breakup nozzle with swirl chamber or break up bar(cap 16; para [0030], [0100]-[0101]) and an air decontamination formulation comprising a polyol, water, and a propellant (abstract). The canister is pressurized to 55psig to 120psig with a hydrocarbon propellant that can be a mix of propane and butane (para [0027], [0058]). The nozzle has two stem orifices (para [0080], [0081], [0084]). The size of the stem orifices is taught as a result effective variable (para [0082]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used and dispensed the composition of Tasz in the aerosol container of Tasz 2 motivated by an expectation of successfully dispensing the sanitizer as taught in Tasz 2.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the diameter of the stem orifices in order to achieve the desired spray as taught by Tasz 2 (para [0082]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the pressure in order to achieve the desired spray as taught above.
With regards to claim 4, Tasz teaches that the formulation has up to about 10 wt% dipropylene glycol by weight. About 10 wt% is taken to overlap approximately 11 wt%. Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious. In the alternative, they are touching close ranges and would also be obvious as they would be expected to function similarly (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Further, a person having ordinary skill int eh art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of dipropylene glycol in order to achieve the desired decontamination.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, the combination teaches the same disinfectant agent int eh same concentration and thus would achieve the same disinfection in the same time.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasz et al. (US 2007/0142260) (hereinafter Tasz) in view of Tasz et al. (US 2007/0194040) (hereinafter Tasz 2).
With regards to claim 7, Tasz teaches an aerosol air sanitizer (abstract and fig 1). Tasz teaches the decontamination formulation comprises dipropylene glycol in an overlapping concentration, water, alcohol, and a propellant (at least claim 23). The propellant is a hydrocarbon propellant that can be a blend of propane and butane the pressure of which is a result effective variable (para [0058]).
Tasz 2 teaches an air decontamination product containing an aerosol canister (1) comprising: a 2 piece mechanical breakup nozzle with swirl chamber or break up bar(cap 16; para [0030], [0100]-[0101]) and an air decontamination formulation comprising a polyol, water, and a propellant (abstract). The canister is pressurized to 55psig to 120psig with a hydrocarbon propellant that can be a mix of propane and butane (para [0027], [0058]). The nozzle has two stem orifices (para [0080], [0081], [0084]). The size of the stem orifices is taught as a result effective variable (para [0082]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used and dispensed the composition of Tasz in the aerosol container of Tasz 2 motivated by an expectation of successfully dispensing the sanitizer as taught in Tasz 2.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the diameter of the stem orifices in order to achieve the desired spray as taught by Tasz 2 (para [0082]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the pressure in order to achieve the desired spray as taught above.
With regards to claim 8, Tasz teaches that the formulation has up to about 10 wt% dipropylene glycol by weight. About 10 wt% is taken to overlap approximately 11 wt%. Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious. In the alternative, they are touching close ranges and would also be obvious as they would be expected to function similarly (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Further, a person having ordinary skill int eh art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of dipropylene glycol in order to achieve the desired decontamination.
With regards to claim 9, Tasz does not specify if the formulation is single phase liquid or not. Tasz 2 teaches that a single phase system does not require shaking (para [0096]) and can be achieved through optimizing the amount of alcohol solvent (ethanol) (para [0098]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the formulation by a single phase liquid system in order to not require shaking for use.
With regards to claim 12, Tasz teaches that the alcohol is ethanol and can be in the range of about 25 wt% to about 50 wt% and water is in an amount of from about 25 wt% to about 50 wt% (para [0045]).
With regards to claim 13, Tasz does not specify the amount of propellant relative to the decontamination formulation. Tasz 2 teaches that a propellant of 10 to 50 wt % with the remainder air treatment product yields desirable pressurizations and spray (para [0027]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used an amount of propellant within the taught range in order to achieve the desired pressurization and spray.
With regards to claims 14 and 15, Tasz 2 teaches an actuator orifice 32 and teaches that the orifice is made to achieve the desired spray pattern (para [0081] and fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized and shaped the actuator orifice in order to achieve the desired spray pattern.
With regards to claim 16, Tasz 2 teaches that the nozzle has a vapor tap with diameters in overlapping ranges (para [0029]).
With regards to claims 17-20, Tasz teaches that particle size is a result effective variable (para [0058]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the particle size in order to achieve the desired dispersion and distribution.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasz et al. (US 2007/0142260) (hereinafter Tasz) in view of Tasz et al. (US 2007/0194040) (hereinafter Tasz 2) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Gumbrecht et al. (US 2006/0269509).
With regards to claims 10 and 11, Tasz does not teach a quaternary morpholinium alkyl sulfate compound as an odor neutralizing cationic surfactant. Gumbrecht et al. teaches using soyaethyl morpholinium ethosulfate as an odor eliminator in a spray (abstract; para [0001]; claim 3; see whole document). Soyaethyl morpholinium ethosulfate is a quaternary morpholinium alkyl sulfate cationic surfactant.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included soyaethyl morpholinium ethosulfate, a quaternary morpholinium alkyl sulfate cationic surfactant, to the spray composition in order to deodorize common scents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights