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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/14/2026 has been received and claims 1-16 and 18 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swanson (10087405).
As to Claims 1-4, Swanson (‘405) discloses a method of removing pathogens from a surface (see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 1-2, Col. 26 lines 19-34), comprising:
providing a wipe (100; 200) including a guanidinyl-containing polymer coating (120; 220) (see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 3-9);
providing a liquid disinfectant having an associated disinfection time for at least one pathogen (see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 14-49);
contacting a surface with the wipe carrying the liquid disinfectant (see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 10-13, Col. 23 lines 14-56); and
allowing the liquid disinfectant to be in contact with the surface for a time, t, until removal or evaporation (i.e. t = time while the wipe with the liquid disinfectant contacts and wipes the surface and thus removing microorganisms from an area - see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 10-13, Col. 23 lines 16-56);
wherein t is the associated disinfection time for the at least one pathogen (see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 10-56 specifically lines 39-56, Col. 23 lines 5-13, Col. 23 line 57 to Col. 24 line 4), with an associated error (i.e. any error or deviation in experimental equipment/steps/measurements/calculation of results used to determine t, including any degradation/defect of wipe/coating/active ingredient of liquid disinfectant and/or incomplete saturation/coverage or oversaturation of the wipe or surface with the liquid disinfectant and/or due to any recontamination of the surface, which results in inaccurate determination of t such that calculation/estimation of a t to be less than necessary t providing less than a complete eradication of microorganisms from the surface or calculation/estimation of a t to be a longer than necessary t for a complete eradiation) (see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 5-13, Col. 23 line 57 to Col. 24 line 4);
wherein the associated error is capable of being within ±40%, or ±30%, or ±20%, or ±10%, of the associated disinfection time for the at least one pathogen (i.e. which provides/results in less than complete eradication/disinfection of the surface - see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 5-13, Col. 23 line 57 to Col. 24 line 4); and
wherein the liquid disinfectant (see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 14-39) has a second associated disinfection time for at least one other pathogen different from the at least one pathogen (i.e. the disclosed liquid disinfectant(s) intrinsically possess(es) a second associated disinfection time for at least one other pathogen that is different from the at least one pathogen - see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 14-39), and the second associated disinfection time for the at least one other pathogen is capable of being less than the associated disinfection time t for the at least one pathogen.
As to Claim 7, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the method further comprises a step of applying, capable of being via spraying, the liquid disinfectant to the surface before contacting the surface with the wipe (see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 14-17).
As to Claim 11, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the associated disinfection time for the at least one pathogen is capable of being a 6-log disinfection time (i.e. disinfection time when greater than at least 99.9%, such as 99.9999%, removal is achieved via contacting with the wipe - see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 10-56, Col. 23 lines 5-13, Col. 24 lines 44-57).
As to Claim 12, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the associated disinfection time for the at least one pathogen is capable of being a 4-log disinfection time (i.e. disinfection time when greater than at least 99.9%, such as 99.99%, is achieved via contacting with the wipe - see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 10-56, Col. 23 lines 5-13, Col. 24 lines 44-57).
As to Claim 13, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the surface includes a non-horizontal surface (i.e. door knobs which includes vertical/non-horizontal surface - see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 55-56).
As to Claim 14, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the surface includes a non-planar surface (i.e. door knobs which includes rounded/non-planar surface - see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 55-56).
As to Claim 15, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the guanidinyl-containing polymer coating (120; 220) is a cationic coating (see entire document, particularly Col. 3 lines 30, 32-33 and 53-54, Col. 21 lines 5-6).
As to Claim 16, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the wipe (100; 200) comprises a non-woven fabric (see entire document, particularly Col. 21 lines 3-4).
As to Claim 17, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the liquid disinfectant (e.x. a quaternary ammonium disinfectant or alcohols or oxidizing agents, etc. - see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 29-39) intrinsically has a second associated disinfection time for at least one other pathogen (i.e. due to particular/specific interaction of each agent with each type of bacterial cell/structure, for example gram positive vs gram negative, or Staphylococcus vs Pseudomonas), wherein an associated disinfection time for the at least one other pathogen is intrinsically less than t (i.e. so as to effect disinfection of microorganisms that are present within the given contact time and/or due to, for example, concentration or quantity of liquid disinfectant present – see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 21-25 and 40-46).
As to Claim 18, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the liquid disinfectant is a quaternary ammonium disinfectant (see entire document, particularly Col. 23 lines 29-39 specifically line 38).
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (10087405) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner (WO2019135066).
Swanson (‘405) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
While Swanson (‘405) discloses that the liquid may be provided to the wipe prior to use of the wipe, Swanson (‘405) does not appear to specifically teach that the liquid disinfectant is added to the wipe at the time of the contacting step.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a liquid disinfectant to a wipe at the time of application/use. Turner (‘066) discloses a method of removing pathogens from a surface (see entire document, particularly p. 1 lines 10-11) comprising:
providing a wipe (12 – 12a or 12b) (see Figures 1a-1d);
providing a liquid disinfectant (16) having an associated disinfection time for at least one pathogen and a second associated disinfection time for at least one other pathogen, wherein the liquid disinfectant (16) is added to the wipe (12) at the time of contacting (i.e. via 14 – see entire document, particularly Figures 1d-1h, p. 2 lines 10-13, p. 5 lines 3-13, p. 6 lines 1-4); and
contacting a surface with the wipe carrying the liquid disinfectant (see entire document, particularly p. 1 lines 10-11, p. 5 lines 11-13);
in order to prepare the wipes as need so as to avoid drying out of the liquid disinfectant and to ensure that the wipe is uniformly wetted without wasting the liquid disinfectant (see entire document, particularly p. 1 lines 10-30, p. 2 lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a step of applying the liquid disinfectant at the time of contacting step in the method of Swanson as a known alternate step in order to avoid wipes drying out so as to avoid inactivating the active ingredient of the liquid disinfectant as shown by Turner.
Thus, Claim 5 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Swanson (‘405) and Turner (‘066).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (10087405) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiattello (20180028431).
Swanson (‘405) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Swanson (‘405) does not appear to specifically teach that the associated time for the at least one pathogen is determined by ASTM E1153 – 14.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize ASTM E1153 to determine an associated disinfection time for at least one pathogen with a disinfectant. Chiattello (‘431) discloses that ASTM E1153 is utilized to test and determine whether a disinfection method with a disinfection means meets or exceeds the EPA requirement (i.e. a governmental regulatory entity) of a minimum log 5 reduction for bacteria (see entire document, particularly [0024], p. 14 [0120]-[0121], p. 15 [0130] and [0132]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize ASTM E1153 as the known standard test method in Swanson in order to test and determine an efficacious disinfection time for disinfecting a surface with the wipe and the liquid disinfectant which meets or exceeds the EPA requirement as shown by Chiattello.
While Chiattello (‘431) does not appear to specifically teach that the ASTM E1153 is specifically ASTM E1153 – 14, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the most appropriate standard test method for efficacy of sanitizers within the ATSM in the method of Swanson such as ASTM E1153-14 as the most relevant/appropriate standard test method for a disinfection wipe applying a liquid disinfectant in order to validate the efficacy to meet the regulatory requirement. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, Claims 8 and 10 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Swanson (‘405) and Chiattello (‘431).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (10087405) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colurciello (20150125502) or Kloeppel (20140171512).
Swanson (‘405) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Swanson (‘405) does not appear to specifically teach that the associated disinfection time for the at least one pathogen is determined by AOAC 961.02.
As to Claim 9, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize AOAC 961.02 to determine an associated disinfection time for at least one pathogen in a method of removing pathogens from a surface. Colurciello (‘502) discloses that AOAC 961.02 is utilized as the method for testing effectiveness a disinfectant wipe for a given disinfection time for disinfecting against microorganisms (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0056] and [0060], p. 6 [0063] and Table 4). Kloeppel (‘512) also discloses that AOAC 961.02 is utilized as the method for testing effectiveness a disinfectant wipe for a given disinfection time for disinfecting against microorganisms (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0052], pp. 4-5 [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize AOAC 961.02 in the method of Swanson as a known industry method in order to test and determine an associated disinfection time and the effectiveness of a disinfection wipe for the associated disinfection time against microorganisms as shown by Colurciello or Kloeppel.
As to Claim 10, while neither Colurciello (‘502) or Kloeppel (‘512) appears to specifically teach that the disinfection time determined to provide effective disinfection is a time registered with a governmental regulatory entity, as it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that AOAC961.02 is one of the EPA-specified test methods for antimicrobials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the associated disinfection time and its efficacy determined via AOAC 961.02 in the combined teaching of Swanson and Colurciello or Kloeppel is a time registered with a governmental regulatory entity (e.g. EPA). Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, Claims 9-10 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Swanson (‘405), and Colurciello (‘502) or Kloeppel (‘512).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, as to applicant’s argument in 6th – 12th lines from the bottom on p. 5 of Remarks, examiner disagrees and points out that as the disclosed liquid disinfectant(s) by Swanson is/are same as that of claimed invention and thus, would possess(es) same inherent properties such as associated disinfection times. In other words, examiner indicates that an associated disinfection time as well as a second associated disinfection time of Swanson’s liquid disinfectant would be intrinsically same as that of the claimed invention particularly as the disinfection times are result of an inherent chemical property of each liquid disinfectant.
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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights