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 Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/04/2025 and 09/04/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 contains the phrase “wherein the composition is substantially free of abrasive particles.” The instant Specification defines “substantially free of” to be at most 2000 ppm abrasive particles in the composition (see US20250257286A1 [0145]). Herein, claim 17 will be interpreted as comprising abrasive particles at 2000 ppm or less.
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 9 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the method of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no method is recited in claim 1.
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(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et. al (US20180249704A1) hereinafter Man.
Man teaches a concentrated antimicrobial composition comprising a cleaning component and a polymer component (see claim 1). With regards to claims 1-2 and 18, Man teaches the composition to comprise of an organic acid sanitizer such as formic acid, and acetic acid (which are known carboxylic acid), among others (see [0107]). The composition can comprise of 0.1-30 wt% nonionic surfactant (see claim 20). The concentrated composition can include solvents such as water (see [0267]) and anionic monomers such as acrylic acid and acrylates (see [0127]).
Although Man does not explicitly disclose the organic acid, anionic polymer, nonionic surfactant, and water in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, the general teachings of Man suggest the inventive composition of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine these limitations into a single embodiment for the benefit of efficacious cleaning, sanitizing and disinfecting (see [0005]). With regards to claim 18, the dienoic acid and pH adjuster are optional hence the composition need not have any.
With regards to claims 2-4, the use of both organic acid and amino acid sanitizers is taught (see [0099]). Methane sulfonic acid, cumene sulfonic acid, formic acid, acetic acid are suitable examples of organic acids, and arginine, aspartic acid, glycine, glutamine, histidine, lysine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, valine, are suitable examples of amino acids (see [0107]-[0108]). Man teaches the use of 0.1-30 wt% acid in the composition (see [0027]).
With regards to claims 5-7, Man explicitly discloses the use of acrylic acid salts, acrylamide tertiary butyl sulfonic acid salts, vinylphosphonic acid, 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid as anionic monomer, among others as anionic monomers in the composition (see [0127]).
With regards to claim 8, the anionic dispersion polymer is taught to be included in the composition in amounts from 0.0001-1 wt% (see [0139]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to include anionic monomer compounds listed above within the overlapping ranges.
With regards to claim 9-10, the use of surfactants such as nonionic surfactants is taught 0.1-30 wt% (see [0175]). The use of polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether, polyoxyalkylene alkenyl ether, sorbitan alknoic acid esters, EO/PO block copolymers, polyethylene glycol, among others are taught as suitable types of nonionic surfactants (see [0177]-[0182]).
With regards to claims 11-12 and 19, the pH of the composition is taught to be acidic within the range from 0-6 (see [0243]).
With regards to claims 13-14, Man does not explicitly teach the use of an organic base as a pH adjuster. However, the use of pH buffers is generally taught (see [0130]). Man also specifically teaches the use of a dialkyldimethyl ammonium salt as a suitable quaternary ammonium compound (see [0025]) with a hydroxide as its anionic counterion (see [0082]). Dialkyldimethyl ammonium salts include diethyldimethylammonium, dimethyldipropylammonium, among others. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
With regards to claim 15, Man teaches the use of the quartenrary ammonium compound to be present in the composition in amounts of 0.0001-10 wt% (see [0097]).
With regards to claims 16-17, the concentrated composition does not require a dienoic acid or abrasive particles. Hence, the inventive composition could be formulated free of these limitations.
With regards to claims 20-21, Man teaches a method of using the inventive composition by contacting the surface with the composition (see [0251]). Man also teaches the use of the composition to disinfect hard surfaces such as metal surgical or medical instruments (see [0254]). Although the type of metal is not explicitly recited, a person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect medical and surgical devices to be made from the metals overlapping with those recited in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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 (571) 272-2817. 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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights