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 1/13/2026 has been received and claims 25-28, 31, 33-34, 38, 41-43, and 46-51 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 30, 32, 38 and 44-45 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, delete “Cancel” and insert --Canceled--. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 25 be found allowable, claim 46 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-27, 33-34, 41-43, 46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no written description support for the limitation of claims 25, 46 and 50 that “the dry cleaning solvent…does not include any hydrocarbons” within the Specification, particularly as the Specification in p. 11 lines 21-22 clearly indicates that dry cleaning solvent “useful herein include any hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons blended with other chemicals” and does not indicate that hydrocarbons are alternative/optional components/embodiments especially since the disclosure in lines 22-23 (i.e. where the dry cleaning solvents “can comprise an organo-silicone”) appears to indicate that D5 is an optional additional component (e.x. “can include” or “may include”) rather than the hydrocarbons
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 25-28, 31, 33-34, 38, 41-43, and 46-51 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 Claims 25, 46 and 50, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitation that “the dry cleaning solvent is…(D5) and does not include any hydrocarbons” as such negative limitation appears to broaden the scope that would allow other additional solvent except for hydrocarbons rather than the solvent being (purely) D5.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the SARS-CoV-2 virus" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claims 41 and 51, it is not clear whether the limitation of the claim is further limiting the parent claim as it appears to present a broader range together with a narrow range or range/limitation that falls outside of the claimed range, where 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).
Claims 26-27, 31, 33-34, 38, 42-43, 47-49, and 51 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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) 28 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berndt (5942007) in view of Darnell et al. (“Inactivation of the coronavirus that induces severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV”, Journal of Virological Methods 121(1):85-91 (2004)).
As to Claim 28, Berndt (‘007) discloses a dry cleaning process, that is performed over a course of two cycles:
a wash cycle (i.e. step 2) and a drying cycle (i.e. steps 3-5), wherein:
in the wash cycle (i.e. step 2), a material (see Figure 1) contaminated with one or more contaminants the one or more contaminants capable of being a virus such as a SARS-CoV-2 virus or a variant thereof that comprises a lipid-containing coating, is saturated with a dry cleaning solvent selected from the group consisting of decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and octamethyltetracyclosiloxane (see entire document, particularly Col. 3 lines 6-11, 25-28, 31-34 and 39-41, Col. 4 lines 37-39 and 44-46);
in the drying cycle (i.e. steps 3-5), the dry cleaning solvent vaporizes, capable of forming submicron liquid particles of the dry cleaning solvent that penetrate and destroy or disrupt the lipid-containing coating of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the variant thereof, and the material is exposed to the vapor for 15, 20, 25 or 30 minutes; and the dry cleaning solvent and vapor is removed (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, Col. 3 line 58 to Col. 4 lines 3); and
intrinsically deactivating at least 98% of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or variant thereof in the material contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (i.e. deactivation of at least 98% of a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 virus is an intrinsic result of following and carrying out the above cycles).
Berndt (‘007) does not appear to specifically teach that the contaminants is/includes a SARS-CoV-2 virus, or a variant thereof, or that the step of vaporizing forms submicron liquid particles of the dry cleaning solvent that penetrate and destroy or disrupt a lipid-containing coating of a SARS-CoV-2 virus or a variant thereof.
As to the limitation that the biological contaminants is/ includes a SARS-CoV-2 virus, or a variant thereof, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize heat and a cleaning agent to deactivate a biological material in the form of a SARS-CoV-2 virus, or a variant thereof. Darnell et al. discloses a method of deactivating a SARS-CoV-2 virus, or a variant thereof, wherein the SARS-CoV-2 virus intrinsically comprising a lipid-containing coating, wherein the method comprises treating a material contaminated with the biological contaminants including a variant of a SARS-CoV-2 virus to heat and/or a cleaning agent (see entire document, particularly p. 87 – section 3.2, p. 89 – last paragraph of section 3.5) in order to inactivate the virus (see entire document, particularly pp. 89-90 – section 4, specifically last 8 lines of right hand column on p. 89 and 6th – 8th lines from the bottom on left hand column on p. 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deactivate a biological contaminants such as a SARS-CoV-2 virus, or a variant thereof through the use of heat and/or a cleaning agent in the method of Berndt as a known biological contaminant in a known deactivation process in order to inactivate such contaminant as shown by Darnell et al..
While Berndt (‘007) does not appear to specifically teach that the vapor is comprised of submicron liquid particles of the dry cleaning solvent, 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 that vaporized dry cleaning solvent will possess varying vapor particle sizes (i.e. possess particle size distribution) that would include submicron liquid particles. Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claim 47, Berndt (‘007) discloses that the wash cycle does not include adding a drycleaning surfactant soap or other cleaning aid (see entire document, particularly Col. 3 lines 33-35).
Thus, Claims 28 and 47 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Berndt (‘007) and Darnell et al..
Claim(s) 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Berndt (5942007) in view of Darnell et al. (“Inactivation of the coronavirus that induces severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV”, Journal of Virological Methods 121(1):85-91 (2004)) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Testa (20150252519).
Berndt (‘007) and Darnell et al. are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Neither Berndt (‘007) or Darnell et al. appears to specifically teach that the material comprises wool, polyester, and/or polyester blend fibers, or cotton, wool, polyester, acrylic, silk, or nylon, or blends thereof.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a materials such as wool, polyester, and/or polyester blend fibers, or cotton, wool, polyester, acrylic, silk, or nylon, or blends thereof with a dry cleaning solvent. Testa (‘519) discloses that in a dry cleaning process comprising:
a washing step comprising saturating with the material to a dry cleaning solvent (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0047], pp. 4-5 [0086] and p. 5 [0087]);
a drying step comprising exposing the material to heat whereby the dry cleaning solvent vaporizes to form a vapor (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0044] – step (d), p. 5 [0090] – line 4) capable of comprising submicron liquid particles of the dry cleaning solvent that penetrate and destroy or disrupt the lipid-containing coating of biological contaminant(s); and removing the vapor (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0091]);
wherein the material comprises wool, polyester, cotton, wool, polyester, acrylic, silk, or nylon (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0048] – lines 3-9, p. 6 [0109]),
in order to provide effective treatment/cleaning of the material by dry cleaning (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0003]-[0006], p. 2 [0044], p. 5 [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dry cleaning a material such as wool, polyester, cotton, wool, polyester, acrylic, silk, or nylon in the method of Berndt as modified by Darnell et al. as known material types in order to treat/clean materials as shown by Testa.
Thus, Claims 48-49 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Berndt (‘007), Darnell et al., and Testa (‘519).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is due to inclusion of limitation that “the dry cleaning solvent is decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5)”. Prior art of record such as Berndt (5942007) does not appear to teach this feature as Berndt (‘007) discloses using a combination of D5 and octamethyltetracyclosiloxane (D4) as the dry cleaning solvent (see entire document, particularly Col. 3 lines 30-33) rather than only one cyclic siloxane. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a dry cleaning process comprised of steps as set forth in the claims, where “the dry cleaning solvent is decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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