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 .
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 1-4 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 1, line 8 (last line), the term “predetermined” was held to be indefinite, see Seagram & Sons Inc. V. Mazall, 84 USPQ 180 (CADC 1950).
Claim 3 is indefinite in the recital of “bleach, chlorine, hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite . . . and sodium perborate” in lines 2-3 because each of the chlorine, hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite . . . and sodium perborate” are types of bleaches. Did Applicant mean “at least one bleach selected from the group consisting of chlorine, hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite . . . and sodium perborate?”
Claims 2-4, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsigras et al. (US Patent No. 7,008,600), hereinafter “Katsigras.”
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Katsigras teaches a housing system, i.e., product, for disinfecting articles which comprises a disinfecting article comprising an aqueous hypohalite releasing composition and an absorbent carrier containing the aqueous hypohalite releasing composition, and a sealable container for storing and dispensing said disinfecting article (see col. 3, lines 30-36), wherein the disinfecting article is preferably a wipe (see col. 3, lines 20-21), the most preferred hypohalite is sodium hypochlorite (see col. 9, lines 45-50), and the wipes contained about 0.6% or about 0.69% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (see col. 15, lines 46-47, col. 16, lines 24-25 and 63; col. 17, lines 27 and 51 and Tables 1-5), wherein the sodium hypochlorite reads on the “whitening agent” of instant claims 1 and 3, and the wipes with NaOCl read on “bleach sheets” of instant claim 1. Katsigras also teaches that one example of a sealable container is a dispenser featuring a resealable dispensing cap and orifice, i.e., opening, that dispenses individual wipes from a roll and retains the next wipe in a ready-to-dispense position, yet allows sealing of the dispensing cap to close the container against the environment when not in use (see col. 15, lines 17-23 and Fig. 1). Even though Katsigras does not teach a laundry-whitening use of his composition, rather a disinfecting article, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition or product, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393.
Regarding claim 2, even though Katsigras does not explicitly disclose when the at least one of the plurality of bleach sheets or disinfecting wipes with sodium hypochlorite is submerged in water, the whitening agent or sodium hypochlorite is removed from the at least one of the plurality of bleach sheets or wipes, such that the water becomes concentrated with the whitening agent or sodium hypochlorite, it would be inherent for the disinfecting wipe of Katsigras to exhibit this property because the same products have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Katsigras anticipates the instant claims.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paris, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0002705), hereinafter “Paris, Jr.”
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Paris, Jr. teaches a container for a sanitizing and disinfecting applicator for hard surfaces, as shown in FIG. 2 below, i.e., product, wherein container 20 is for storing and subsequently dispensing sanitizing and disinfecting substrates 10 loaded with an effective HOCl (hypochlorous acid) solution 18, i.e., bleach, as shown in FIG. 1 below. As shown in FIG. 2, a plurality of sheets of the pre-moistened HOCl wipes 22 are disposed within the container 20 such that individual wipes 22 may be dispensed from the container 20, and pouch 24 is sealed during manufacture with a removable and preferably resealable cover 26 that provides access to the HOCl wipes 22 disposed within the interior 25 of the container 20 (see ¶ [0023]), wherein the HOCl reads on the “whitening agent” of instant claims 1 and 3, and the pre-moistened HOCl wipes read on “bleach sheets” of instant claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The HOCl solution has a free available chlorine (FAC) concentration of between about 25 ppm and about 750 ppm (see claim 1). Even though Paris, Jr. does not teach a laundry-whitening use of his composition, rather for sanitizing and disinfecting hard surfaces, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition or product, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393.
Regarding claim 2, even though Paris, Jr. does not explicitly disclose when the at least one of the plurality of bleach sheets or pre-moistened HOCl wipes is submerged in water, the whitening agent or HOCl is removed from the at least one of the plurality of bleach sheets or pre-moistened HOCl wipes, such that the water becomes concentrated with the whitening agent or HOCl, it would be inherent for the pre-moistened HOCl wipes of Paris, Jr. to exhibit this property because the same products have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Paris, Jr. anticipates the instant claims.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsigras as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Bechyne (US 2014/0175110).
Regarding claim 4, Katsigras teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Katsigras teaches that term "container" in the housing system refers to, but is not limited to, packets containing one or more individual disinfectant wipes and bulk dispensers, such as canisters, tubs and jars, which dispense one disinfectant wipe at a time, and further feature suitable means to reseal the bulk dispenser between uses to preserve the integrity of the disinfecting articles (see col. 15, lines 5-11), or other wipe/dispenser combinations known in the art (see col. 15, lines 26-28). Katsigras, however, fails to disclose the plurality of bleach sheets or disinfectant wipes stored within the container in an accordion-style manner, such that each of the plurality of bleach sheets are removable from the container through the dispensing seal of the opening at a rate of one bleach sheet at a time.
Bechyne, an analogous art in storing and dispensing container for wipes (see Title), teaches a container for wipes which includes a dispenser housing with a top wall which includes a dispensing orifice which is covered by a lid assembly (see abstract) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
446
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the wipes can be arranged in the housing as a continuous web of interconnected wipes which are folded in an accordion-like stacked configuration, and the individual wipes can be connected together along lines of frangibility, such as lines of perforations, to ensure that the trailing wipe is in position for grasping by the user after the leading wipe is removed (see ¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll dispenser having a resealable dispensing cap and orifice of Katsigras with the dispensing container of Bechyne, that is, a container which includes a dispenser housing with a top wall which includes a dispensing orifice which is covered by a lid assembly as shown in the Figure above, wherein the wipes are arranged in the housing in an accordion-like manner, rather than in a roll, because Katsigras specifically desires housing systems of wipe/dispenser combinations known in the art, and Bechyne provides such housing system for ease of dispensing one wipe at a time.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris, Jr. as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Bechyne.
Regarding claim 4, Paris, Jr. teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Paris, Jr. teaches that the individual sheets of wipes 22 may be may be folded and stacked in a known manner to facilitate removal of each wipe 22 individually from the pouch 24 (see ¶ [0023]). Paris, Jr., however, fails to disclose the plurality of bleach sheets or pre-moistened HOCl wipes stored within the container in an accordion-style manner, such that each of the plurality of bleach sheets are removable from the container through the dispensing seal of the opening at a rate of one bleach sheet at a time.
Bechyne, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container, like in Fig. 2, of Paris, Jr. with the dispensing container of Bechyne, that is, a container which includes a dispenser housing with a top wall which includes a dispensing orifice which is covered by a lid assembly wherein the wipes are arranged in the housing in an accordion-like manner, because Paris, Jr. specifically desires a container having individual sheets of wipes which may be may be folded and stacked in a known manner to facilitate removal of each wipe individually, and it is known from Bechyne that a typical wipe dispensing container includes wipes which are arranged in the housing in an accordion-like manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761