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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 10, 2023, July 18, 2024 and April 20, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the limitation “in combination” should be deleted. The limitation may suggest that the claimed invention is directed to a mixture of the two liquids, which is clearly not the intent of the claim (see claim 11). The limitation does not add anything to the claim other than the potential for misinterpretation.
In claims 11-16, the recitation “are filled in different spray containers” is ambiguous. The recitation potentially conveys a method step, which in the case of kit/device claims conveys intended use. To obviate ambiguity, the claims should be amended to unequivocally recite structure (e.g. “wherein the kit comprises separate spray containers containing liquid A and liquid B, respectively”)
Claim 16 is grammatically ambiguous due to lack of punctuation and/or verbs. Commas should be added to break up the run-on sentence into clauses, and/or additional words should be added to provide proper context to the run-on sentence (e.g. “spraying a liquid A containing…a solvent, and spraying a liquid B…”).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabone et al. (“Rabone”) (WO 93/19152)
With respect to claim 1, Rabone discloses a cleaning composition for making an electron donor (soil of organic origin, see p. 1) visible (see abstract), the composition comprising:
a liquid A containing a coloring component including an electron donating colorant (acid dye) and a solvent (see abstract).
While Rabone further discloses that application of liquid A on the electron donor and surrounding area can be followed by application of chlorine bleach* on the electron donor and surrounding area (see last paragraph of p. 11), the invention taught by Rabone differs from the claimed invention in that Rabone does not explicitly disclose that the two liquids (liquid A and bleach) are part of a kit.
Nevertheless, based on the disclosure of Rabone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided liquid A and the bleaching solution as a kit comprising two separate containers of liquids (i.e. liquid A and liquid B comprising the bleach). The modification would obviate the need to obtain the liquids separately.
*All commercially available bleach comprises a solvent (e.g. water).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the electron donor is a compound containing at least one nucleophilic atomic group comprising -NH2 (e.g. protein, which comprises an amino backbone) (see abstract).
With respect to claims 4-6, the dye in liquid A can be Brilliant Blue G (see p. 3), which contains a quaternary ammonium salt.
With respect to claims 7-10, Rabone discloses that liquid A further comprises a thickener (see p. 10). Regarding the limitation “to be gelled by calcium ions”, the limitation conveys an intended use of the claimed thickener. The limitation is anticipated if the thickener taught by the prior art is merely capable of being gelled by calcium ions, which is in this case is possible by further modification of the thickener taught by Rabone such that it can be gelled by calcium ions. If the claims intend to specify an inherent property of the claimed thickener to gel in the presence of calcium ions, then the claims should be amended to properly reflect this intent (e.g. “a thickener configured to gel in the presence of calcium ions”).
With respect to claims 11-15, Rabone discloses that liquid A is in a spray container (see p. 11). While Rabone does not disclose how the bleach is applied to the electron donor, the use of a spray bottle for dispensing bleach is well-known in the art. Given that liquid A is already provided in a spray container and given that it is well-known to provide bleach in a spray container, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided liquid B in a spray bottle as well.
With respect to claim 16, Rabone also discloses a method for making an electron donor (soil) visible, the method comprising applying liquid A and applying liquid B onto an adhesion surface of an electron donor (e.g. soiled tile, see Example 11, p. 22-23) to reveal an adhesion site of the electron donor (soiled area of tile, see Example 11, p. 22-23).
While Rabone does not explicitly disclose that the application of liquids A and B is accomplished via spraying in this specific method, as discussed above (see rejections of claims 11-14), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the liquids using a spray bottle.
With respect to claims 17-18, the electron donor is a compound containing at least one nucleophilic atomic group comprising -NH2 (e.g. protein, which comprises an amino backbone) (see abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights