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 .
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 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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending and are examined on the merits in this prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 4, second line, the term “bae” appears to be a misspelling of the word “base.”
Claim 5, first line, recites the term “the dye in phenolphthalein.” It is believed the term “in” should be “is”.
Claim 6, second line, recites the term “o”. It is unclear what this term or letter signifies or suggests.
Claim 7, third line, has two consecutive commas.
Appropriate corrections are required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS
Indefiniteness Rejections
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.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, second line, recites the term “especially of surfaces in the medical field and/or skin surfaces.” As discussed in MPEP 2173.05(d), “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.”
Claim 1, sixth line, and claim 9, sixth line each recite the term “color consistency.” The term “color consistency” typically refers to the appearance of a color when measured against a standard or expectation. Such a standard is not set forth in the Specification, and therefore the metes and bounds of the term cannot be determined.
Claim 1, seventh line, recites the term “a predeterminable period of time.” It is unclear from the instant specification what this period of time is or how it is controlled. As such, the claim language is considered indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. See MPEP 2173.02.
Claim 2, third line, recites the term “a predetermined amount.” This term is unclear since an amount is not recited in the claim, and the term is not found in the Specification.
Further regarding claim 2, it is unclear how much indicator additive is being added since is it unclear what is meant by the term “the indicator additive (3) is admixed with at least 3% by volume, and/or 3 mol% of the base composition (2).”
Claim 6, third line recites the terms “viscous liquid” and “non-viscous liquid.” The term “viscous” is considered a relative term, and the instant Specification provides no standard for measuring the degrees intended. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 8, second line, and claim 9, fourth line, each recites the term “including skin surfaces.” As discussed above, description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
Anticipation Rejections
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.
1) Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gleissner (US 2022/0195353 A1, filed 06/03/2021; the alternatively spelled Gleißner, is considered the same inventor wherein the ‘353 application recites the German eszett “ß” for “ss”).
For claim 1, Gleissner teaches the following (pg 2, claim 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
378
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, Gleissner teaches the following (pg 2, claim 2):
PNG
media_image2.png
190
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 3, Gleissner teaches the following (pg 2, claim 3):
PNG
media_image3.png
144
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For claim 6, Gleissner teaches the following (pg 2, claim 4):
PNG
media_image4.png
143
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For claim 7, Gleissner teaches the following (pg 2, claim 5):
PNG
media_image5.png
247
556
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For claims 8-9, Gleissner teaches the following (pg 2, claim 7):
PNG
media_image6.png
386
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
2) Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 2005/0065048 A1).
MacDonald teaches a liquid soap containing and indicator wherein the user washes their hands and a color change occurs (Abstract; pf 4, [0041]; claims 1-3). This appears to be identical to the invention claimed. As the reference uses a fluorescent red dye, the examiner maintains the "generates light" limitation is satisfied. As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to claim 2, as it is impossible to know what is meant by a "predetermined amount" the examiner maintains this limitation is satisfied.
For claim 4, MacDonald teaches a “soap,” by definition a metal salt.
For claim 5, MacDonald teaches a “phenolphthalein” as a dye indicator ([0041]).
For claim 6, MacDonald teaches liquid soaps (pg 4, [0038]-[0041]).
For claim 7, MacDonald teaches (pg 1, [0008]):
PNG
media_image7.png
93
444
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
124
453
media_image8.png
Greyscale
For claims 8-9, MacDonald teaches the method of making the product for the washing of hands and body (pg 1, [0002]) requires the following steps (pg 2, [0022]):
PNG
media_image9.png
368
444
media_image9.png
Greyscale
3) Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VInson (US 2014/0057987 A1).
Vinson teaches compositions comprising a disinfectant, a pH indicator dye, and an alkaline Substance. The pH indicator dye expresses a color when initially sprayed, but loses or changes color once sprayed. The compositions may be used to disinfect surfaces, and the pH indicator dye indicates what surface has been disinfected and ensures that a sufficient period of time has passed to disinfect the surface (Abstract). Vinson teaches the surface may be skin (pg 3, [0033]).
With respect to claim 2, as it is impossible to know what is meant by a "predetermined amount" the examiner maintains this limitation is satisfied.
For claim 3, Vinson teaches specific indicators that change color once sprayed (pg 5, [0062]); for claim 5, the table in ¶ [0062] recites phenolphthalein.
For claim 4, Vinson teaches the disinfectant may be an alcohol, an aldehyde, an oxidizing agent, a phenol, or a quaternary ammonium surfactant (pg 8, claim 7).
For claim 6, Vinson teaches the composition may be a liquid (pg 3, [0040]) or gel (pg 3, [0041]; pgs 7-8, Example 2).
For claim 7, Vinson teaches (pg 2, [0021] and [0030]):
PNG
media_image10.png
113
453
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image11.png
402
467
media_image11.png
Greyscale
For claims 8 and 9, Vinson teaches addition of the claimed elements to a bottle containing a pump for distribution to a skin surface (pgs 7-8, Examples 1 and 2; pg 3, [0033]; pg 4, [0050]).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:30-5:30; F 9-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached on (571) 272-6897. 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.
/MICHAEL P COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612