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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: insert --the-- between “for” and “at least”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 7 and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 5, it is not clear whether the limitation “at the time of application” is attempting to indicate just prior to contacting the wipe to the surface or merely for preparing “the wipe carrying the liquid disinfection” at any time prior to contact with a surface as set forth in parent claim 1.
In Claim 7, it is not clear whether the step set forth in the claim is an additional application step for the liquid disinfectant or is attempting to further specify how the disinfectant is provided in parent claim 1, particularly in view of the parent claim 1 appearing to indicate that the wipe carries the liquid disinfectant in line 5.
In Claim 17, it is not clear whether “an associated disinfection time for the at least one other pathogen” is a different quantity that “a second associated disinfection time for at least one other pathogen”.
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) 1-5, 7, and 11-18 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); and
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).
As to Claim 5, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the liquid disinfectant is added to the wipe at the time of application (i.e. when the wipe carrying the disinfectant is prepared prior to contacting the wipe to the surface) (see entire document, particularly Col. 23 line 16).
As to Claim 7, Swanson (‘405) discloses that the liquid disinfectant is applied 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.
In the event that “at the time of application” is deemed to indicate just before contacting the wipe to the surface, the following rejection will apply.
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 application.
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 application (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 application 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: WO2015040366 and GB2492567 and WO2017129567 and WO2005107823 (a method of wetting a wipe with a disinfectant solution prior to use).
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