DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 14 depends on canceled claim 13. Claim 14 should depend on claim 1 and is read as such for examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks filed 18 September 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for the reasons outlined in the last office action are acknowledged and accordingly the rejections thereto have been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) appropriate for amended claim 1 and the claims dependent thereon appears to be appropriate as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albert US Pat 6,476,385 B1 (hereafter Albert), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 June 2023 in view of Faiola et al. US PG-PUB 2003/0197122 A1 (hereafter Faiola) and Ford et al. US Pat 5,411,929 (hereafter Ford).
As to claim 1: Albert discloses a method for determining if a surface has been cleaned (col. 3, lines 62-67 and col. 4, lines 1-7), the method comprising:
applying an amount of indicator material (not labeled but see ink disclosed in col. 3, lines 36-54) to one or more environmental surfaces (not labeled but see col. 3, lines 37-54 - the various surfaces disclosed are considered to be environmental surfaces) suspected of pathogenic contamination;
implementing a cleaning program for the one or more environmental surfaces suspected pathogenic contamination (col. 4, lines 1-13);
directing a black light (10; fig. 3) that emanates ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the one or more environmental surfaces after one or more opportunities to clean the one or more environmental surfaces by environmental services staff (col. 4, lines 1-13);
determining if any of the indicator material (not labeled but see ink disclosed in col. 3, lines 36-54) remains on the one or more environmental surfaces (not labeled but see col. 3, lines 37-54 - the various surfaces disclosed are considered to be environmental surfaces) after one or more opportunities to clean the environmental surface, wherein if indicator material is not present when the black light is directed on the one or more environmental surfaces, the one or more environmental surfaces is cleaned, and wherein if indicator material is present when the black light is directed on the one or more environmental surfaces, the one or more environmental surfaces is not cleaned (col. 4, lines 1-13);
recording the quality of cleaning result (col. 4, lines 8-25).
Albert does not explicitly teach:
categorizing the one or more environmental surfaces as cleaned or not cleaned based upon whether the indicator material remains on the one or more environmental surfaces after one or more opportunities to clean the one or more environmental surfaces by environmental services staff, thereby providing a quality of cleaning result for each of the one or more environmental surfaces;
comparing the recorded quality of cleaning result for each of the one or more environmental surfaces to a second quality of cleaning result; and
utilizing the comparison of the cleaning results to modify the cleaning program to improve cleanliness of the one or more environmental surfaces suspected of pathogenic contamination.
However, Faiola teaches:
categorizing one or more environmental surfaces as cleaned or not cleaned based upon whether indicator material remains on the one or more environmental surfaces after one or more opportunities to clean the one or more environmental surfaces by environmental services staff, thereby providing a quality of cleaning result for each of the one or more environmental surfaces (¶ 26);
comparing the recorded quality of cleaning result for each of the one or more environmental surfaces to a second quality of cleaning result (¶ 26 regarding the comparison between a first and second washing); and
utilizing the comparison of the cleaning results to modify the cleaning program to improve cleanliness of the one or more environmental surfaces suspected of pathogenic contamination (¶ 26 regarding the comparison which modifies the cleaning by requiring cleaning until no indicator remains).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Albert’s method to include the steps of categorizing the one or more environmental surfaces as cleaned or not cleaned based upon whether the indicator material remains on the one or more environmental surfaces after one or more opportunities to clean the one or more environmental surfaces by environmental services staff, thereby providing a quality of cleaning result for each of the one or more environmental surfaces;
comparing the recorded quality of cleaning result for each of the one or more environmental surfaces to a second quality of cleaning result; and utilizing the comparison of the cleaning results to modify the cleaning program to improve cleanliness of the one or more environmental surfaces suspected of pathogenic contamination because such a methodology can ensure that a worker is free of contamination, such a suggested in ¶ 26 of Faiola, and can thus serve to prevent illness or disease from spreading.
Albert also does not explicitly teach:
the indicator material comprises a carrier, a transparent indicator soluble in the carrier, a transparent source of adherence to the surface soluble in the carrier, and a surfactant.
However, Ford teaches:
an indicator material that comprises a carrier (overcoat layer disclosed in col. 10, lines 14-20), a transparent indicator soluble in the carrier (col. 6, lines 50-66 regarding the binder noted to be transparent), a transparent source of adherence to the surface soluble in the carrier (col. 9, lines 62-67 and col. 10, lines 1-10), and a surfactant (col. 10, lines 14-20 regarding the fluorochemical surfactant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Albert’s indicator material to comprise a carrier, a transparent indicator soluble in the carrier, a transparent source of adherence to the surface soluble in the carrier, and a surfactant because such a composition is an art recognized means of producing a photothermographic image which can disguise an image as a latent image which becomes visible under certain forms of radiation, such as suggested in Ford col. 9, lines 24-45. Such a composition would thus be useful for Albert’s method because a latent image that only appears after application of ultraviolet radiation could be used to check cleaning efficiency without being aesthetically displeasing when illuminated in the visible part of the spectrum.
As to claim 2: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising:
establishing a quantitative baseline level of cleaning for the one or more surfaces within the environment (see col. 4, lines 14-17 of Albert; the amount of cleaning necessary to remove the indicator is considered to be a quantitative baseline level), the quantitative baseline level of cleaning being based, at least in part, upon the determining and categorizing (see col. 4, lines 4-7 of Albert).
As to claim 3: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the quantitative baseline level of cleaning is a pre-intervention baseline level of cleaning (the baseline level of cleaning disclosed in col. 4, lines 4-7 of Albert may be considered a pre-intervention because there is nothing to preclude an intervention from occurring after the quantitative baseline level of cleaning is established such as recited in claim 2).
As to claim 4: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 2, further comprising:
providing training for environmental services staff on cleaning issues, wherein training includes providing environmental services staff with information regarding at least one selected from the group consisting of improved cleaning techniques, the quality of cleaning result, a baseline result, and locations of areas to be cleaned (see Albert col. 4, lines 14-25 in view of Faiola ¶ 26),
evaluating whether the cleaning of the environment has improved after training environmental service staff members by repeating the determining step to establish a post-intervention level of cleaning and comparing the post-intervention level of cleaning to the quantitative baseline level of cleaning (see col. 5, lines 51-53 and col. 6, lines 1-10 of Albert in view of ¶ 26 of Faiola; once cleaning is determined to not be satisfactory by visual inspection of the substance when inspected by UV light, repetition of the cleaning until the indicator mark vanishes occurs and at that point the cleaning is considered to be equal to the quantitative baseline level of cleaning established as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above).
As to claim 5: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a pre-intervention level of cleaning (see col. 6, lines 1-14 of Albert; the level of cleaning required to remove the mark is considered to be a pre-intervention level of cleaning because the said cleaning can occur before an arbitrarily defined intervention), the pre-intervention level of cleaning being a baseline and based, at least in part, upon whether indicator material visibly remains, when exposed to UV radiation, on the one or more target sites (see col. 6, lines 1-14 of Albert).
As to claim 6: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 5, further comprising:
conducting a review of cleaning procedures performed by the environmental staff (see col. 6, lines 11-14 of Albert).
As to claim 7: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 6, further comprising:
altering existing cleaning procedures to enhance the first institution’s cleaning program (see col. 6, lines 1-10 of Albert in view of ¶ 26 of Faiola);
determining a post-intervention level of cleaning in the environment of the first institution by repeating the determining step (see col. 5, lines 51-53 and col. 6, lines 1-10 of Albert in view of ¶ 26 of Faiola); and
comparing the pre-intervention level of cleaning to the post-intervention level of cleaning to determine a change in cleaning (see col. 6, lines 11-14 of Albert).
As to claim 8: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 7, further comprising:
providing feedback regarding the change in cleaning to the one or more environmental services staff members (see col. 6, lines 11-14 of Albert in view of ¶ 26 of Faiola; when management notes that a visible indicator remains, this is considered to be providing feedback regarding the change in cleaning to the one or more environmental services staff members).
As to claim 9: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 5, further comprising sharing the baseline with environmental services staff (col. 6, lines 11-14 of Albert in view of ¶ 26 of Faiola).
As to claim 10: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising comparing the quality of cleaning results with a baseline level of cleaning (col. 6, lines 5-10 of Albert), wherein training includes providing environmental services staff with information regarding the comparison between the quality of cleaning result and the baseline level of cleaning (col. 6, lines 11-14 of Albert in view of ¶ 26 of Faiola).
As to claim 11: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising recording each of a plurality of environmental surfaces (not labeled but see col. 3, lines 37-54 of Albert - the various surfaces disclosed are considered to be environmental surfaces) in the institution as marked or not marked (see Albert col. 4, lines 1-7), any of the one or more surfaces to which indicator material (not labeled but see ink disclosed in Albert col. 3, lines 36-54) is applied being recorded as marked (see col. 6, lines 11-14 of Albert), and including determining if any of the indicator material (not labeled but see ink disclosed in Albert col. 3, lines 36-54) remains on the environmental surfaces recorded as marked (see col. 6, lines 11-14 of Albert).
As to claim 12: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the indicator material (not labeled but see ink disclosed in Albert col. 3, lines 36-54) is transparent (see col. 6, lines 1-4 of Albert).
As to claim 14: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 13, wherein the indicator material (not labeled but see ink disclosed in Albert col. 3, lines 36-54) is at least one of a liquid (see col. 3, lines 50-54 of Albert) or a gel.
As to claim 15: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the indicator material (not labeled but see ink disclosed in Albert col. 3, lines 36-54) is transparent when dry (see col. 6, lines 1-4 of Albert).
As to claim 16: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more environmental surfaces (not labeled but see col. 3, lines 37-54 of Albert - the various surfaces disclosed are considered to be environmental surfaces) are high touch surfaces (see col. 3, line 67 and col. 4, line 1 of Albert in accordance with Applicant’s as-filed specification page 14, second ¶ which notes that such high touch surfaces include toilet surfaces or sinks).
As to claim 17: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more environmental surfaces (not labeled but see col. 3, lines 37-54 of Albert - the various surfaces disclosed are considered to be environmental surfaces) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a patient call box, a bed rail, an over-bed table, a bedside table, a door handle, a door knob, a door, a call button, a chair, a tray table, a toilet surface (see col. 3, line 67 and col. 4, line 1 of Albert), a sink surface, a bedpan, a bedpan flushing device, a telephone, a faucet, a faucet handle, a toilet, a toilet seat, a toilet handle, a grab bar, a push plate, a light switch, and a light switch plate.
As to claim 18: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1 wherein the indicator material resists dry abrasion (see col. 4, lines 38-40 of Albert).
As to claim 19: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more environmental surfaces (not labeled but see col. 3, lines 37-54 of Albert - the various surfaces disclosed are considered to be environmental surfaces) are located in one or more areas within a hospital room (see Faiola ¶ 20), the quality of cleaning result including a percentage of environmental surfaces (not labeled but see col. 3, lines 37-54 of Albert - the various surfaces disclosed are considered to be environmental surfaces) cleaned for each of the one or more areas (see col. 4, lines 14-19 of Albert; percentages are ratios of the various recorded quality metrics).
As to claim 20: Albert as modified by Faiola and Ford teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the institution (not labeled; the building in which the surfaces depicted in fig. 2 of Albert are located is considered to be an institution) is at least one of a hospital (see ¶ 20 of Faiola), a healthcare facility, and a health care institution.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855