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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 29 May 2026 and 30 June 2026 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 30 June 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 12-16, and 18-24 are pending with claims 2, 7-8, 10-11, and 17 being cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11 of the applicant’s response, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. with respect to Cunningham in view of Batra and Grafe.
Batra teaches the newly amended limitation “an average actual fiber diameter of at least 200 nm and at most 900 nm (actual fiber diameter from 250nm to 500nm inclusive, page 11 line 17). Cunningham teaches an overlapping fiber diameter range (average diameter from about 0.1 to about 20 micrometers, column 11 lines 41-42) with Grafe providing the motivation for a smaller fiber diameter (unique flexibility and improved cleaning character, paragraph [0009]). Additionally, as the applicant points out in the response filed 30 June 2026, Cunningham teaches a concentration range overlapping with the newly added limitation of 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% of an active ingredient comprising a quaternary ammonium-based compound (total amount of surfactant in the germicidal solution is from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight, column 7 lines 28-29). Therefore, the required concentration range could have been achieved through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)). Finally, Cunningham teaches wherein the decontamination kit provides a log10 CFU reduction of at least 4.0 of microorganisms from a surface (disinfectant wipe may provide a log reduction in some embodiments at least about 4, column 14 lines 11-14). Therefore, a combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe would render the current invention obvious.
The applicant argues that the quaternary ammonium compounds taught by Cunningham and Grafe does not satisfy the limitation “an active ingredient comprising quaternary ammonium-based compound”. However, as discussed in advisory action mailed 15 June 2026, a chemical compound and its properties are inseparable. Therefore. Because both Grafe and Cunningham teach a quaternary ammonia-based compound in an aqueous solution, all properties of said compound are necessarily present in the disclosures of Cunningham and Grafe as identical compounds cannot have mutually exclusive properties regardless of explicitly taught usage (See MPEP 2112.01 II).
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 3-6, 9, 12-16, and 18-22 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. with respect to Cunningham in view of Batra and Grafe.
The rejection of claims 7, 10-11, and 17 are withdrawn due to the claims being cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 12-16, 18-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham (US 8563017 B2) in view of Batra (WO 2019025942 A1) and Grafe (US 20040092185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cunningham teaches a decontamination kit (stabilized disinfectant wipe, abstract) comprising: a nonwoven wipe comprising a plurality of polyolefin fibers (nonwoven web of polyolefins, column 9 lines 48-51) and wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers have a basis weight of at least 20 and no more than 100 grams per square meter (20 to about 100 gsm, column 12 line 57), and an aqueous solution (wet wipe contains a germicidal solution, abstract) comprising 0.05 wt % to 5 wt % of an active ingredient comprising an quaternary ammonium-based compound (surfactant may be employed such as quaternary ammonium compounds, column 7 lines 21-22, and total amount of surfactant in the germicidal solution is from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight, column 7 lines 28-29), wherein the decontamination kit provides a log10 CFU reduction of at least 4.0 of microorganisms from a surface (disinfectant wipe may provide a log reduction in some embodiments at least about 4, column 14 lines 11-14), but does not teach polyolefin fibers having an average actual fiber diameter of at least 200 nm and at most 900 nm. However, Batra teaches polyolefin fibers having an average actual fiber diameter of at least 200 nm and at most 900 nm (actual fiber diameter from 250nm to 500nm inclusive, page 11 line 17). While Cunningham does not explicitly teaches that the quaternary ammonium-based compound has a concentration range between 0.05 wt% to 5 wt%, in the case of overlapping ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the quaternary ammonium-based compound concentration to a range of 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% to achieve the desired aqueous solution composition through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)).
Cunningham, and Grafe are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of non-woven disinfecting wipes. Batra is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of non-woven wipes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination wipes taught by Cunningham with the fiber diameter and basis weight taught by Batra because Grafe teaches that small fiber diameter gives the fiber on the wipe a unique flexibility and improved cleaning character (paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches wherein the active ingredient further comprises at least one of an organic peracid, peroxide, chlorine-based compound, surfactant, biguanide, and alcohol (germicidal solution includes a peracid and peroxide and one or more surfactant, abstract, Cunningham).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers comprises at least one of polypropylene and polyethylene (examples of polymers may include polyethylene and polypropylene, column 9 lines 50-54, Cunningham).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers comprises about 50% to 99% by weight of at least one crystalline polyolefin polymer , and from about 1% to about 40% by weight of at least one hydrocarbon tackifier resin, wherein the nonwoven wipe exhibits a Heat of Fusion measured using differential scanning calorimetry of greater than 50 J/gram. However, Batra further teaches wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers comprises about 50% to 99% by weight of at least one crystalline polyolefin polymer , and from about 1% to about 40% by weight of at least one hydrocarbon tackifier resin (abstract), wherein the nonwoven wipe exhibits a Heat of Fusion measured using differential scanning calorimetry of greater than 50 J/gram (abstract).
Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the disinfecting wipe taught by Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe with the composition of crystalline polyolefin and hydrocarbon tackifier taught by Batra because Batra teaches such a composition exhibits an increase in tensile strength of the wipe (page 3 lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers has a basis weight of at least 20 and no more than 60 g/m2. However, Batra further teaches wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers has a basis weight of at least 20 and no more than 60 g/m2 (web has a basis weight of approximately 55 g/m2, page 32 lines 19-20, Batra).
Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the decontamination wipes taught by Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe with the basis weight taught by Batra because Batra teaches that lower basis weight can have advantageously result in lower production cost (page 3 lines 23).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers comprise a hydrocarbon tackifier that is a saturated hydrocarbon. However, Batra further teaches wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers comprise a hydrocarbon tackifier that is a saturated hydrocarbon (saturated hydrocarbon tackifier, page 1 lines 31-32).
Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the disinfecting wipe as taught by Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe with the saturated hydrocarbon tackifier taught by Batra because Batra teaches such a composition exhibits an increase in tensile strength of the wipe (page 3 lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, while the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers is substantially free of a coating, Batra teaches that coating the nonwoven web is a step that is optionally carried out after web formation (page 28 lines 4-5 and 11). This indicates that the fibers are free of a coating by default, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try skipping this optional application if the additional attributes were not needed and skill have a reasonable expectation of producing a successful nonwoven fabric/web (See MPEP 2143 I (E)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches wherein the aqueous solution is provided on the nonwoven wipe (disinfectant wet wipe contains a germicidal solution, abstract, Cunningham).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches wherein the aqueous solution is not provided on the nonwoven wipe (wipe is packaged and provided to a user who subsequently adds germicidal solution, column 9 lines 43-45, Cunningham).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe traches wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers are treated to impart hydrophilicity (to improve wettability of the nonwoven web material one or more surfactants are also employed, abstract, Cunningham).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches wherein the aqueous solution comprises a solvent or a surfactant (to improve wettability of the nonwoven web material one or more surfactants are also employed, abstract, Cunningham).
Regarding claim 18, Cunningham teaches a method of decontaminating a surface, the method of contacting the surface with an aqueous solution (method comprising contacting the surface with a wet wipe and germicidal solution, claim 15) comprising 0.05 wt % to 5 wt % of an active ingredient comprising an quaternary ammonium-based compound (surfactant may be employed such as quaternary ammonium compounds, column 7 lines 21-22, and total amount of surfactant in the germicidal solution is from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight, column 7 lines 28-29); and wiping the surface with a nonwoven wipe comprising a plurality of polyolefin fibers (method comprising contacting the surface with a wet wipe and germicidal solution, claim 15, and nonwoven web of polyolefins, column 9 lines 48-51) and wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers have a basis weight of at least 20 and no more than 100 grams per square meter (20 to about 100 gsm, column 12 line 57), wherein the nonwoven wipe and the aqueous solution provides a log10 CFU reduction of at least 4.0 of microorganisms from a surface (disinfectant wipe may provide a log reduction in some embodiments at least about 4, column 14 lines 11-14), but does not teach polyolefin fibers having an average actual fiber diameter of at least 200 nm and at most 900 nm. However, Batra teaches polyolefin fibers having an average actual fiber diameter of at least 200 nm and at most 900 nm (actual fiber diameter from 250nm to 500nm inclusive, page 11 line 17). While Cunningham does not explicitly teaches that the quaternary ammonium-based compound has a concentration range between 0.05 wt% to 5 wt%, in the case of overlapping ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the quaternary ammonium-based compound concentration to a range of 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% to achieve the desired aqueous solution composition through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)).
Cunningham, and Grafe are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of non-woven disinfecting wipes. Batra is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of non-woven wipes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination wipes taught by Cunningham with the fiber diameter and basis weight taught by Batra because Grafe teaches that small fiber diameter gives the fiber on the wipe a unique flexibility and improved cleaning character (paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 19, Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra teaches wherein the aqueous solution comprises at least 50 wt% of water (germicidal solution dispersed in a solvent such as water, column 9 lines 25-27, and solvent may be 50 wt% to about 99.9 wt%, column 9 line 3, Cunningham).
Regarding claim 20, Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra teaches wherein the aqueous solution comprises at least 95 wt% of water (germicidal solution dispersed in a solvent such as water, column 9 lines 25-27, and solvent may be 50 wt% to about 99.9 wt%, column 9 line 3, Cunningham).
While Cunningham does not explicitly teach wherein the amount of water is explicitly 95 wt%, in the case of overlapping ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the water content to at least 95 wt% to achieve the desired disinfectant effect (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the plurality of polyolefin fibers have an effective fiber diameter in a range of at least 1.0 micrometers to at most 8.0 micrometers. However, Batra further teaches a mean effective fiber diameter of preferably from greater than 1 micrometer to about 10.0 micrometer, page 11 line 12). While Batra does explicitly teach that the effective fiber diameter is between 1.0 micrometer and 8.0 micrometers, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for overlapping ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the effective fiber diameter to a range of 1 micrometer to 8 micrometers to achieve the desired wipe composition through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the nonwoven wipe has a solidity in a range of at least 10 and no more 40. However, Grafe further teaches wherein the nonwoven wipe has a solidity in a range of at least 10 and no more 40 (15% to 25% solidity, paragraph [0014]).
Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the decontamination wipe taught by Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra with the solidity taught by Grafe because Grafe teaches such a parameter for the wipe advantageously allows for the wipe to remove inorganic or organic soils from a complex surface (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra teaches wherein the basis weight of the plurality of polyolefin fibers is at most 50 grams per square meter (nonwoven fibrous webs exhibit a basis weight from 1 gsm to about 50 gsm, Batra).
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham, Grafe, and Batra in view of Hope (US 9096821 B1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the quaternary ammonium-based compound comprises octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, C12-C16 alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, or a combination of two or more thereof. However, Hope teaches wherein the quaternary ammonium-based compound comprises octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, C12-C16 alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, or a combination of two or more thereof (present formulation may include one or more of quaternary ammonium compounds including dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, column 4 lines 29-30 and 34-35).
Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Hope is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of non-woven disinfecting wipes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disinfecting wipe taught by Cunningham, Batra, and Grafe with the specific quaternary ammonium-based compounds as taught by Hope because Hope teaches such compounds are surfactants that provide antimicrobial benefits (column 4 lines 27-28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights