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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received November 11, 2025. Claims 24-26, 28-30, and 32-43 are currently pending.
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.
The rejection of claims 24-26, 30, 32, 33, and 38-42 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ivanova et al, RU 2009/148269 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
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 24-26, 28, 30, 32-36, and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al, US 6,583,181.
Chiang et al teach disinfecting wipes (col. 4, lines 62-67) comprising NaOH, EDTA, a 60/40 mixture of DDMAC and BZK, and the balance water with a pH of 7.1 (col. 6, example 1). Suitable biocidal amines include Lonzabac 12 (col. 3, lines 41-45), and so as mixtures of biocides are contemplated by the reference, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include Lonzabac 12 in example 1 with confidence of forming an effective disinfecting solution as Lonzabac 12 is taught as a suitable biocide of the reference.
With respect to the pH range claimed, these compositions may have a pH as high as 8.5 (col. 4, lines 27-29).
With respect to claims 34-36, ethoxylated alcohols are suitable surfactants of the invention (col. 4, lines 19-21).
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds that the reference teaches neutral pH values and so does not recognize that a more basic pH allows for effective compositions without the use of alcohol. First, there is no alcohol in example 1 above and the reference allows for pH values as high as 8.5, which is within the range claimed. Disinfecting wipes with an alkaline pH are known in the art, and the reference allows for a more basic pH than exemplified, and so the rejection is maintained.
Claims 24-26, 28-30, 32-36, and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al, US 2018/0343859.
Jiang et al teach an antimicrobial wipe composition comprising 0.1% Lonzabac 12, 0.4% of a mixture of BZK and DDDMAC (20% Lonzabac active agent), EDTA, monoethanolamine, ethoxylated alcohol, and the balance water (¶84, example 2), wherein the composition has a pH as high as 9 (¶21). This is precisely the invention claimed except the examiner cannot say with certainty that the ratio of BZK to DDMAC is 50/50. These mixtures are common, however, and are commercially available as taught by Chiang et al above and so the examiner maintains one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these two disinfectants to be present in roughly equal amounts.
With respect to claim 29, GLDA is a suitable chelant of the invention (¶64).
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds that the reference teaches a wide range of pH values and so does not recognize that a more basic pH allows for effective compositions without the use of alcohol. First, there is no alcohol in example 2 above and the reference allows for alkaline pH values within the range claimed. Disinfecting wipes with an alkaline pH are known in the art and the reference allows for a basic pH and so the rejection is maintained.
Claims 24-26, 28-30, and 32-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al, US 2018/0343859 in view of Napolitano et al, US 2012/0039974.
Jiang et al are relied upon as set forth above. Though ethoxylated alcohols are the preferred surfactant of the reference, the reference does not mention a C16-18 alcohol. Such nonionic surfactants are extremely common in the art as taught by Napolitano et al, which teaches a disinfecting wipe comprising a quaternary biocide and ethoxylated alcohol (¶87, table 1), and suitable ethoxylated alcohols may have cetyl, stearyl, and cetostearyl alkyl groups (¶56). It would be patently obvious to use common ethoxylated alcohols based on C16-18 alcohols in the disinfecting wipe of Jiang et al as these ethoxylated alcohols are taught as suitable in the disinfecting wipes of Napolitano et al.
Applicants’ traversal is the same as above and the examiner’s response is the same.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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