DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-28 are pending in the instant application. Claims 11-18 and 28 have been withdrawn based upon Restriction/Election as discussed below. Claims 1-10 and 19-27 are being examined on the merits in the instant application.
Advisory Notice
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, currently claims 1-27, in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the subject matter of all claims are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims.” This is not found persuasive because the composition(s) could be used for a different process such as a sorbent pad product, or a paper coating layer, as discussed in the Requirement for Restriction/Election (p. 3, item 2).
Applicants have elected the following species in the reply filed 05/21/2026: (a) A species of a residual hydrophobic coating that neutralizes urine odor and/or degrades urine with specificity to (i) a species of microbial spores(s) is Bacillus subtilis; (i) a species of an enzyme is lipase; (ii) a species of a clear film with specificity to the polymer(s) therein is anionic acrylic homopolymer. Claims 1-10 and 19-27 read on the elected species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-18 and 28 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/21/2026.
Priority
The instant Application is a Continuation Application of PCT/US2025/059117 filed 12/11/2025, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/730,754 (hereafter ‘754) filed 12/11/2024; and NL-2039406 filed 12/19/2024. The examiner notes that a certified copy of NL-2039406 has not been made of record in the instant Application.
The U.S. effective filing date for claims 1-10 and 19-23 and 25-27 has been determined to be 12/11/2025, the filing date of the PCT/US2025/059117. The examiner does not find support for the limitation “microbial spores(s) and an enzyme at a concentration of at least 42.0 wt.% of the overall weight of the residual hydrophobic coating” (instant claim 1, lines 3-4) in ‘754. The range in claim 24 is supported in ‘754 claim 53. The examiner also does not find support in ‘754 for the limitation “wherein the enzyme is a lipase having a concentration of at least 0.5 wt.% of the overall concentration of the residual hydrophobic coating” (instant claim 22).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/30/2025, 03/24/2026 and 05/06/2026 was/were filed before/after the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 and 19-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite because the claim recites “(a) microbial spore(s) and an enzyme at a concentration of at least 42.0 wt% of the overall weight of the residual hydrophobic coating” (in lines 3-4). It is unclear of the “at least 42.0 wt%” is the amount of only to the “microbial spore(s)”, the “ enzyme”, or the combination of “microbial spore(s) and an enzyme”. Appropriate clarification is required. Claims 2-10 and 19-27 inherit the above discussed issue and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite for reciting 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 1 recites the broad recitation “the enzyme being present in an effective amount to reduce and/or eliminate urine odor and/or degrade urine when the residual hydrophobic coating is contacted with urine” (in lines 3-4), and the claim also recites “an enzyme at a concentration of at least 42.0 wt% of the overall weight of the residual hydrophobic coating” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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. Claims 2-10 and 19-27 inherit the above discussed issue and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the enzyme composition" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 and 19-27 inherit the above discussed issue and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 22 is rejected as being indefinite for reciting 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 22 recites the broad recitation “the enzyme being present at an effective amount to degrade urine and/or lipids within urine.” , and the claim also recites “a lipase having a concentration of at least 0.5 wt%” (in line 2)which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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. Claims 23 and 24 inherit the above discussed issue and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claims 22 and 23 are 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.
Instant claim 22 is rejected as failing to further limit the parent claim because claim 1 recites “an enzyme at a concentration of at least 42.0 wt% of the overall weight of the composition” and claim 22 which ultimately depends from claim 1 recites “wherein the enzyme is a lipase having a concentration of at least 0.5 wt% of the overall concentration of the residual hydrophobic coating” which is outside the scope of the parent claim (i.e. 0.5 wt% is outside the scope of at least 42.0 wt%).
Similarly, claim 23 recites “wherein the enzyme concentration ranging from 0.51 wt% to 4.2 wt% of the overall concentration of the residual hydrophobic coating.” ultimately depending from claim 1 reciting “an enzyme at a concentration of at least 42.0 wt% of the overall weight of the composition” which is outside the scope of the parent claim (i.e. 0.51 wt% to 4.2 wt% is outside the scope of at least 42.0 wt%).
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 § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-10 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCDANIEL (US 2020/0299521 A1; published September, 2020) in view of Dorfan et al. (“The Utilization of Bacillus subtilis to Design Environmentally Friendly Living Paints with Anti-mold Properties,” 2024, MDPI, Microorganisms, Vol. 12, Article 1226, pp. 1-13); UEDA (US 2016/0115326 A1; published April, 2016); HINMAN (GB 2,362,814 A; published 12/05/2001); and KLINGMAN (US 2021/0009922 A1; published January, 2021).
Applicants Claims
Applicant claims a residual hydrophobic coating that neutralizes urine odor and/or degrades urine comprising: (a) microbial spore(s) and an enzyme at a concentration of at least 42 wt.% of the overall weight of the residual hydrophobic coating, the enzyme being present in an effective amount to reduce and/or eliminate urine odor and/or degrade urine when the residual hydrophobic coating is contacted with urine, and (b) a clear film having the microbial spore(s) and the enzyme composition homogenously dispersed therein (instant claim 1).
Applicants have elected the following species in the reply filed 05/21/2026: (a) A species of a residual hydrophobic coating that neutralizes urine odor and/or degrades urine with specificity to (i) a species of microbial spores(s) is Bacillus subtilis; (i) a species of an enzyme is lipase; (ii) a species of a clear film with specificity to the polymer(s) therein is anionic acrylic homopolymer.
Determination of the scope
and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01)
MCDANIEL teaches peptide-containing antimicrobial coating compositions (Title, see whole document), and particularly “Disclosed herein are peptide-containing anti-microbial coating compositions. The peptide-containing anti-microbial\ coating compositions can comprise an acrylic latex coating composition, an anti-microbial enzyme dispersed within the acrylic coating composition and an anti-microbial peptide dispersed within the acrylic coating composition. The antimicrobial enzyme and the anti-microbial peptide are jointly selected to synergistically enhance lysis efficacy of the coating composition in comparison to lysis efficacy of the coating composition with the anti-microbial enzyme alone. The acrylic coating can be an acrylic latex coating composition is an acrylic latex paint.” (abstract).
MCDANIEL teaches that: “In general, the invention features an antibiological composition for reducing microbial growth in an uncured polymeric material during storage prior to curing, comprising: at least two or more antibiological agents selected from a lipolytic enzyme, a peptidase, […] wherein the antibiological agents are present in a concentration sufficient to inhibit the growth or adherence of at least one or more microbial specie within or upon the surface of the uncured polymeric material; and wherein the uncured polymeric material is at least one selected from a coating, a plastic, an elastomer, a composite, a laminate, an adhesive, a sealant and a textile finish.” ([0006]). And that: “In certain embodiments, the lipolytic enzyme is at least one selected from a lipase,” ([0007]).
MCDANIEL teaches that: “An antimicrobial agent often acts as a deodorant by reducing the growth of odor producing microorganism, particularly in a fiber ( e.g., a textile) and/or a polymeric film application for packaging of food and/or trash.”
MCDANIEL teaches that: “the coating comprising an antibiological agent may comprise any component for a coating described herein or as would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the present disclosures.” ([0102]). And that: “A clear-coating refers to a coating that is not opaque (e.g., transparent, semi-transparent, translucent) and/or does not produce an opaque solid film after application and cure, but may coating may be colored or non-colored.” ([0103])(instant claim 1, a clear film). And further that: “A coating generally comprises one or more component materials that contribute to the properties of the coating, the ability of a coating to be applied to a surface, the ability of the coating to undergo film formation, and/or the properties of the produced film. Examples of such a coating component include a binder, a liquid component, a colorant, an additive, or a combination thereof, and such materials are contemplated for used in a coating.” ([0104]).
MCDANIEL teaches that: “A binder ("polymer," "resin," "film former") comprises a molecule capable of film formation. Film formation refers to a physical and/or a chemical change of a binder in a coating, wherein the change converts the coating into a film. Often, a binder converts into a film through a polymerization reaction, wherein a first binder molecule (e.g., a monomer) covalently bonds with at least a second binder molecule (e.g., a monomer) to form a polymer. A thermoplastic binder and/or a coating reversibly softens and/or liquefies when heated. Film formation for a thermoplastic coating generally comprises a physical process, typically the loss of the volatile (e.g., liquid) component from a coating. A thermosetting binder undergoes film formation by a chemical process, typically the crosslinking of a binder into a network polymer.” And including “an acrylic resin (e.g., a thermoplastic acrylic resin, a water borne thermoplastic acrylic, a thermosetting acrylic resin such as an acrylic-epoxy combination, an acrylic-amino combination, an acrylic-urethane combination, a waterborne thermosetting acrylic, etc.)” ([0105]).
MCDANIEL teaches that: “This Example demonstrates a lipase assay determining the efficacy of lipase in a coating (e.g., paint). Films of Sherwin-Williams Acrylic Latex comprising lipase were assayed 7 months after they were prepared. Materials used are shown in the table below.” ([0348], Example 38).
MCDANIEL claims: “A coating composition, comprising: an acrylic latex coating material; and an anti-microbial additive dispersed within the acrylic latex coating material, wherein the anti-microbial additive comprises an anti-microbial enzyme and an antimicrobial peptide, wherein the anti-microbial enzyme and the anti-microbial peptide are jointly selected to synergistically enhance lysis efficacy of the coating composition in comparison to lysis efficacy of the coating composition with the anti-microbial enzyme alone.” (claim 1), and including acrylic latex paints (claims 10 & 21). MCDANIEL does not expressly teach the residual coating is hydrophobic (e.g. dried latex paint), however one of ordinary skill would have implicitly recognized this feature as dried paint is generally hydrophobic in nature (instant claim 1, “A residual hydrophobic coating”)(MPEP §2144.01). Similarly, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that a dried paint is “covalently bound, electrostatically bound, or adhered by physical interaction(s) to the substrate.” (instant claim 2).
MCDANIEL claims “The coating composition of claim 1 wherein the antimicrobial enzyme and the antimicrobial peptide are present in the coating composition in respective amounts sufficient to provide a final dry coating weight of the coating composition between about 7% and about 28% greater than a final dry weight of the acrylic latex coating material.” (claims 7, 18 & 22).
MCDANIEL teaches an acrylic latex binder in an amount of “About 0.000000001 % to about 80%” ([0212], Table 24)(instant claims 4 & 10).
Ascertainment of the difference between
the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the rejected claims and the teachings of MCDANIEL is that MCDANIEL does not expressly teach: (1) adding microbial spores to the compositions, (2) the acrylic polymer is an anionic acrylic homopolymer; (3) the “residual hydrophobic coating” “neutralizes urine odor and/or degrades urine”.
Dorfan et al. teaches the utilization of Bacillus subtilis to design environmentally friendly living paints with anti-mold properties (title, see whole document). And particularly that: “The anti-fungal properties of the probiotic bacterium Bacillus subtilis have been studied extensively in agriculture and ecology, but their applications in the built environment remain to be determined. Our work aims to utilize this biological component to introduce new diverse anti-mold properties into paint. “Mold” refers to the ubiquitous fungal species that generate visible multicellular filaments commonly found in household dust. The development of mold leads to severe health problems for occupants, including allergic response, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and asthma, which have significant economic and clinical outcomes. We here demonstrate the robust effect of a commercial paint enhanced with Bacillus subtilis cells against the common mold agent, Aspergillus niger, and identify three biosynthetic clusters essential for this effect. Our results lay the foundation for bio-convergence and synthetic biology approaches to introduce renewable and environmentally friendly bio-anti-fungal agents into the built environment.” (abstract).
Dorfan et al. teaches that: “While living paints with B. subtilis for mold prevention were not evaluated previously, anti-corrosive paints based on B. subtilis and related specie were previously reported. Therefore, developing environmentally friendly anti-mold surfaces and paints with B. subtilis bears economic and clinical importance.” And that: “As Bacillus subtilis is a probiotic agent, recognized as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) for human consumption, we here asked whether we can harvest its antifungal properties to enhance the anti-mold properties of paints. Among our goals, we aimed to test whether the different antifungal agents encoded by this bacterium productively interact to increase their potency towards fungi. By using natural producers to develop sustainable biopesticides for the construction industry, we can reduce our reliance on current chemical solutions and greatly benefit human health.” (p. 2, paragraphs 2-3).
Dorfan et al. teaches that: “Our results indicated that B. subtilis was an effective agent in reducing A. niger spread through multiple plates (Figure 3A,B). B. subtilis application was even efficient compared with a commercial mold containing the broad-spectrum anti-fungal biocide (Figure 4). Results were reproduced in independent experiments and with multiple technical repeats, suggesting high compatibility of this bacterium as an anti-mold paint additive in industrial settings.” (paragraph bridging, pp. 6-7).
Dorfan et al. teaches that: “Most paints consist of the same essential components: pigments, binders, and additives, in addition to liquid solutions. As we mixed bacterial culture with the paint in a 1:1 ratio, nutrients were available to support bacterial growth further.” (p. 7, last paragraph).
Dorfan et al. teaches that: “Our findings that B. subtilis can efficiently replace chemical supplements to generate anti-mold paint (Figure 4) highlight the advantage of a living agent as an anti-mold substance, producing multiple (here, at least three) active agents simultaneously and thereby reducing the change for the emergence of antibiotic resistance.” (p. 9, last paragraph). And that: “The anti-mold activity of B. subtilis in paint is not trivial. First, it indicates that the chemical and biological properties of the products of srf and pps operons are maintained in the complex commercial solutions. Second, it allows a living agent to be integrated into the paint. As sporulation commences (Figure 5) within the paint, re-activating anti-mold activities by germinating the spores is feasible. These unique aspects are significant as current anti-mold paints are associated with environmental toxicity. They are based on the incorporation of living agents rather than non-renewable chemicals whose activities decay over time. The prolonged survival of B. subtilis spores, estimated to be at least hundreds of years, not only provides advantages in terms of mold prevention but also offers a hopeful prospect for sustainable solutions. […] These results strongly support that an approach of gradually replacing the anti-mold components of paint with probiotic bacteria is an applicable and appealing approach. Moreover, in 2015, the United Nations issued an urgent call exemplified by 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) to improve health and education while tackling climate change. Goal 11 calls explicitly to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’. Within this framework, the improvement of the built environment, as well as the generation of sustainable live bio-paints, becomes a cardinal milestone.” (p. 10, 1st paragraph).
UEDA teaches cold-curing photocatalytic coating material (title, see whole document) including “an acrylic emulsion-type resin including acrylic resin particles with an average particle diameter of 80 nm to 200 nm, in which a glass transition temperature is 20° C. or less.” (abstract). And that: “A cold-curing coating composition according to a fourth aspect of the present invention is the cold-curing coating composition according to either one of the second and third aspects, wherein the coating material containing the homopolymer is an anionic coating material.” ([0014]). And further that: “The present invention relates to a cold-curing photocatalytic coating material, a cold-curing coating composition and an interior material. More specifically, the present invention relates to a cold-curing photocatalytic coating material, a cold-curing coating composition, each of which enhances film physical properties while obtaining high antibacterial properties and antiviral properties, and to an interior material applied therewith.” ([0001]).
UEDA teaches that: “Note that in a case of the cold curing coating composition of this embodiment, it is prefer able to use an anionic coating material as the homopolymer coating material.” (elected species of polymer(s) of clear coating – instant claims 3, 5-6, 8-9).
UEDA teaches that: “Moreover, as the application target material, there
are also preferable: a construction material such as a ceiling material, a tile, glass, wallpaper, a wall material, a flooring material and a standing finish fixture; […] Moreover, as the application target material, for example, there are also preferable a door, a door handle, a knob, a handrail, an interior counter, furniture, a kitchen, a toilet, a bath, a lighting fixture, a touch panel, a switch, a sheet for use in these purposes, and the like. The film composed of the cold-curing photocatalytic coating material or cold-curing coating composition of this embodiment has high antibacterial properties and antiviral properties, and accordingly, is particularly effective for such surfaces with which human bodies and the like are frequently brought into contact.” [emphasis added]([0072])(instant claims 25-27).
HINMAN teaches a Urinal cleaning method using a cleaning composition containing a bacteria or an enzyme (title, see whole document). HINMAN teaches that: “The Bacillus subtilis acts on those elements in urine, which would tend to produce blockages, uric scale formulation and malodours, to degrade, alter or break them down.” (p. 4, 3rd paragraph). The examiner notes that while claim limitation - the “residual hydrophobic coating” “neutralizes urine odor and/or degrades urine” – is clearly an intended use, the HINMAN reference clearly suggest Bacillus subtilis degrades, alters or breaks down those elements in urine which tend to form malodours (instant claims 1, 19).
KLINGMAN teaches methods and compositions for reducing persistent odor in clothing and mitigating biofilms (title, see whole document), and particularly that: “Novel methods and compositions for treating textiles and other materials are disclosed in which persistent odor or other symptoms of biofilm presence can be reduced through the use of compositions comprising a biofilm attack agent such as N-acetyl cysteine or certain enzymes, coupled with surfactants and other agents.” (abstract). KILINGMAN teaches the inclusion of bacterial spores and other microbial agents ([0100] through [0108]), and particularly that: “The spores are obtained from non-pathogenic spore-forming microorganisms that are capable of reacting with and removing various organic substances. Such spores can produce extracellular enzymes that may include protease enzymes, […] lipase enzymes […]. Such spore concentrates may comprise from 1 % to 50% of the compositions described herein, or from 5% to 30% or from 10% to 25%. […] Alternatively, the number of colony forming units (CFU) per ml in the concentrate or diluted mixture may be 1x105 to 1x1010 […], or 1x105 to 1x108.” ([1010])(instant claims 19-20). KILNGMAN teaches that: “The bacillus spores may have an average particle diameter of about 2-50 microns, such as from about 10 to 45 microns. Bacillus spores are commercially available in blends in aqueous carriers. Commercially available bacterial spore blends include without limitation Freshen Free™ CAN (l0x), from Novozymes Biologicals, Inc.; J-Zyme AB-20XNF of JTech Sales (Baton Rouge, Fla.), a 20x liquid concentrate comprising spores from Bacillus subtilis;” ([0102])(instant claims 10-21).
KLINGMAN teaches that: “Enzymatic treatments may include enzymes in liquid or powder form that, when mixed in an aqueous solution and applied to clothing, may help attack a biofilm or remove energy sources for odorous bacteria. […] Enzymes may be incorporated in the ready-to-use product at levels from 0.01 % to 20% of active enzyme by weight of the composition, or from 1 % to 15%, 2% to 12%, and the like.” ([0114]).
Regarding the amount of the microbial spore(s) and the enzyme (instant claim 1, at least 42 wt%; instant claim 24, 42.7 wt.% to 83 wt.%), and the enzyme (claim 22, “a concentration of at least 0.5%” “an effective amount to degrade urine and/or lipids within urine.” (instant claim 22), the prior art clearly suggest an enzyme such as lipase in a coating composition, MCDANIEL claims “The coating composition of claim 1 wherein the antimicrobial enzyme and the antimicrobial peptide are present in the coating composition in respective amounts sufficient to provide a final dry coating weight of the coating composition between about 7% and about 28% greater than a final dry weight of the acrylic latex coating material.” (claims 7, 18 & 22). And KLINGMAN teaches the “Enzymes may be incorporated in the ready-to-use product at levels from 0.01 % to 20% of active enzyme by weight of the composition” ([0114]), and that: “Such spore concentrates may comprise from 1 % to 50% of the compositions described herein, or from 5% to 30% or from 10% to 25%. […] Alternatively, the number of colony forming units (CFU) per ml in the concentrate or diluted mixture may be 1x105 to 1x1010 […], or 1x105 to 1x108.” ([1010]). The combination of microbial spores and enzyme(s) such as lipase encompasses the claimed range, for example enzyme(s) at a concentration of 12 wt%, or more, and microbial spores at a concentration of 30 wt.%, or more, encompasses at least 42 wt% and 24.7 wt.% to 83 wt.% (instant claims 1 and 24). Alternatively, a lower concentration of enzymes (e.g. 4 wt%) and a higher concentration of microbial spores (e.g. 40%)(instant claims 1, 22-23). MPEP §2144.05 - In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding the amount of the anionic acrylic homopolymer in the coating (instant claims 4, 7 & 10) it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the amount of same in a enzyme/bacillus coating (e.g. clear paint) to act as a binder (known function of acrylic resin in latex paints) in the same (MPEP §2144.05-II).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a coating composition such as a clear/transparent paint including an enzyme such as a lipase, as suggested by MCDANIEL, and further to include a bacterial spore such as Bacillus subtilis, as suggested by Dorfan et al. as a “living paint” for “environmentally friendly” “anti-mold” agent in the same, the coating including an anionic acrylic homopolymer binder, as suggested by UEDA, and being capable of degrades, alters or breaks down those elements in urine which tend to form malodours, as suggested by HINMAN, the combination of Bacillus subitlis and an enzyme such as lipase suggested by KLINGMAN, for odor control coatings.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention because it would have required no more than an ordinary level of skill to formulate an anionic acrylic homopolymer coating comprising a lipase/ Bacillus subitlis combination for anti-microbial and odor control. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner cites McDaniel (US 2021/0238391 A1) as teaching a lipase-enzyme-containing sealant and/or caulks to inhibit mold and mildew growth (see whole document). The examiner cites Flickinger et al. (“Painting and Printing Living Bacteria: Engineering Nanoporous Biocatalytic Coatings to Preserve Microbial Viability and Intensify Reactivity,” 2007, ACS; Biotechnology Progress, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 2-17) is cited as teaching latex biocatalytic coatings containing ~50% by volume microorganisms (E. Coli)(see whole document). The examiner cites Friel et al. (“Acrylic Polymers as Coating Binders,” 2012, ASTM International, Paint and Coating Testing Manual 15th ed., Chapter 6, pp. 49-64) as teaching acrylic polymers as coating binders (see whole document).
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 and 19-27 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Claims 1-10 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); and claims 1-10 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. No claims allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN A GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5868. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5 PM PST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/IVAN A GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/TIGABU KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights