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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
Castillo does not disclose disinfecting wipes that are saturated with a disinfectant solution. Baby wipes are mentioned, which are intended to clean the skin. However, a disinfecting effect in the biological sense is neither described nor appropriate. Baby wipes are intended to have a gentle or caring effect on the skin and not to perform aggressive disinfection.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., aggressive disinfection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Castillo discloses a liquid composition includes cleaning formulation which may be included with wet wipes (see paragraph [0045]). Claim 1 require disinfecting wipes. Examiner notes that wipes including cleaning formulations are disinfecting wipes as broadly interpreted in the view of one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 1 does not provide any limitations which would distinguish from such, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Examiner notes that term disinfect means to clean.
Applicant Argues:
In addition, Castillo does not disclose a disinfectant solution containing a dye. The passage [0136] cited in the office action deals with a different technical context. According to this, shaped particles can be designed in such a way that a color change occurs on the shaped particles. Accordingly, there is no dye in dissolved fo
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dye in dissolved in a liquid impregnating a nonwoven, and certainly not in a disinfectant solution) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Castillo teaches disinfectant/cleaning solution containing a dye (see paragraphs [0131-0136]). Examiner notes that at minimum, both are located within a wipe. Examiner further notes that claim 1 recites “a disinfectant solution having at least two liquid components, a lignin content of the nonwoven being between 0.02 g.m2 and 1g/m2 and/or the disinfectant solution containing a dye. Examiner notes that the language is part of an and/or phrase thus, only 1 of the 3 limitations is required by the claim.
Castillo also teaches at least two liquid components.
Applicant Argues:
With regard to Whale, it is noted that, in our understanding, this is in no way suitable for disclosing the lignin content of the nonwoven. Paragraph [0057] cited in this regard deals with the percentage lignin content in a starting material that is subjected to a complex processing and modification process. A glance at claim 1 of Whale makes it clear that the antimicrobial cellulose-containing microporous superabsorbent composition formed is in no way comparable to the starting material (e.g., simple shredded wood particles) in terms of its structure and composition. Especially wood particles contain cellulose as the structural reinforcement and lignin as separate components. However, in cellulose fiber or particle production, lignin
becomes an undesirable component. Therefore, industrial pulping processes focus on selectively removing lignin while preserving the cellulose polymer to produce high-quality products.
Whale is completely silent about the lignin content in the processed product. The processed products are microparticles having an average particle diameter of from 100 pim to 800 pm.
Obviously, such particles are not fibers that can form a nonwoven. For this reason, the lignin content of a nonwoven as an end product cannot be directly or indirectly derived from Whale.
The claims as amended define clearly over the cited art. The use of a dye in a disinfectant solution is not shown by Castillo, and the claimed lignin content in the finished product is not shown in Whale. The claims are allowable under §103 over these references.
Examiner’s Response:
Whale is concerned with making wipes or other types of absorbent materials. Whale discloses wipes or absorbent materials having a lignin content (see also paragraph [0141] – which describes shaping the material to form a wipe – Examiner notes that lignin is a part of the material as described by Whale). Applicant has provided not language or structure in claim 1, that would distinguish from such.
Examiner further notes that claim 1 recites “a disinfectant solution having at least two liquid components, a lignin content of the nonwoven being between 0.02 g.m2 and 1g/m2 and/or the disinfectant solution containing a dye. Examiner notes that the language is part of an and/or phrase thus, only 1 of the 3 limitations is required by the claim.
Castillo also teaches at least two liquid components.
For the reasons stated above, the claims stand rejected as previously presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mario Castillo (US 2017/0342617 A1 – hereinafter Castillo) in view of Whale et al. (US 2024/0277888 A1 – hereinafter Whale).
Re Claims 1, 9, and 11:
Castillo discloses a package comprising: a container formed with a dispensing opening (see paragraphs [0149 and 0160], see Fig. 11); and a supply of nonwoven disinfecting wipes in the container (see Abstract, see paragraph [0045]), the wipes being made of fibers and impregnated with a disinfectant solution having at least two liquid components (see paragraphs [0042-0045]), and the disinfectant solution containing a dye (see paragraph [0136]), but where if fails to specifically teach the wipes being made of fibers containing lignin, a lignin content of the nonwoven being between 0.02 g/m2 and 1 g/m2 .
Whale teaches wipes being made of fibers containing lignin, a lignin content of the nonwoven being between 0.02 g/m2 and 1 g/m2 (see paragraph [0057]) (Examiner notes that Whale discloses comprising lignin at least greater than a 0 amount up to about 20% of weight). Re Claim 9: Whale teaches wherein the fibers is formed entirely of biodegradable plant-based material (see paragraph [0001]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo with that of Whale, to provide a biodegradable and reusable cellulose-containing adsorbent material, of a particular composition, for a given purpose desired by one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further Re Claim 8:
Castillo discloses wherein the nonwoven has three layers (see Figs. 4-6A).
Further Re Claim 10:
Castillo discloses wherein the nonwoven has a basis weight between 25 g/m2 and 80 g/m2 (see paragraph [0087]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Whale and further in view of Tina L. Hendricks (US 2022/0132840 – hereinafter Hendricks).
Re Claim 2:
Castillo in view of Whale discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the liquid components of the disinfectant solution are alcohol with a volume fraction between 50% and 90% and water with a volume fraction between 10% and 50%.
Hendricks further in view teaches wherein liquid components of a disinfectant solution are alcohol with a volume fraction between 50% and 90% and water with a volume fraction between 10% and 50% (see paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo in view of Whale, with that of Hendricks, to provide a formula for a desired usage such as efficient evaporation of the alcohol for a particular purpose. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Whale and further in view of Di Cintio et al. (US 6,967,025 B2 – hereinafter Di Cintio).
Re Claim 3:
Castillo in view of Whale discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the wherein the disinfectant solution has a pH regulator and the disinfectant solution has a pH between 3.5 and 5.8.
Di Cintio further in view teaches wherein the disinfectant solution has a pH regulator and the disinfectant solution has a pH between 3.5 and 5.8 (see col. 15 lines 17-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo in view of Whale, with that of Di Cintio, to provide a formula to inhibit undesirable bacteria. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Whale and further in view of Ehrnsperger et al. (US 2013/0281948 A1 – hereinafter Ehrnsperger).
Re Claim 4:
Castillo in view of Whale discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the nonwoven has at least one layer containing a lignin-containing wood fiber material.
Ehrnsperger further in view teaches wherein the nonwoven has at least one layer containing a lignin-containing wood fiber material (see col. 15 lines 17-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo in view of Whale, with that of Ehrnsperger, to provide a particular composition for a wipe material as known within the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Whale and Ehrnsperger and further in view of Lee et al. (US 10,196,780 B2 – hereafter Lee)).
Re Claim 5:
Castillo in view of Whale and Ehrnsperger and discloses the device of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the layer of the nonwoven with lignin-containing wood pulp consists of 70% to 100% by weight of pulp.
Lee further in view teaches wherein the layer of the nonwoven with lignin-containing wood pulp consists of 70% to 100% by weight of pulp (see col. 28 lines 50-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo in view of Whale and Ehrnsperger with that of Lee, to provide a particular composition for a wipe material as known within the art. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Whale and further in view of Makoto et al. (JP 2004-360163 A – hereinafter Makoto).
Re Claims 6 and 7:
Castillo in view of Whale discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the nonwoven has a plurality of layers of which at least one layer contains fibers of regenerated viscose fibers and wherein the one layer containing viscose fibers consists of 70% by weight to 100% by weight of viscose staple fibers.
Makoto further in view teaches wherein the nonwoven has a plurality of layers of which at least one layer contains fibers of regenerated viscose fibers. Re Claim 7: wherein the one layer containing viscose fibers consists of 70% by weight to 100% by weight of viscose staple fibers (see Comparative Example 2, see Description). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo in view of Whale with that of Makoto, to provide a particular composition for a wipe material as known within the art. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Whale and further in view of Joy et al. (US 2021/0302446 A1 – hereinafter Joy).
Re Claims 12 and 13:
Castillo in view of Whale discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the disinfectant solution contains between 0.02 mg/l and 1 mg/l of the dye.
Joy further in view teaches wherein a disinfectant solution contains between 0.02 mg/l and 1 mg/l of the dye (see paragraph [0053])). Re Claim 13: Joy further in view teaches wherein the dye is a food dye, a natural dye, or a nature-identical dye (see paragraph [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo in view of Whale with that of Joy, to provide a particular composition for a wipe material as known within the art. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Whale and further in view of Melin et al. (US 2009/0289077 A1 – hereinafter Melin).
Re Claims 14-16:
Castillo in view of Whale discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the supply contains between 50 and 200 of the disinfecting wipes.
Melin further in view teaches wherein a supply contains between 50 and 200 of the disinfecting wipes (see paragraph [0037] and Fig. 5 for claims 14 and 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Castillo in view of Whale with that of Melin, to provide a desired number of products for dispensing as known within the art. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651