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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 10/04/2023
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Kindly add a period at the end of claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buskens et al. (US 2016/0122584 A1) in view of Hamashima (US 2023/0183598 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17; Buskens et al. discloses a system and a method [0001] for dispensing [0093] a residual surface sanitization or disinfection formula [0075] on a surface [0081], the system comprising:
a sanitization or disinfection formulation ([0075], the antibacterial additives); and
a device including a sprayer ([0093]; the applicator is a sprayer) configured to spray the formulation onto a surface as a coating [0093-0094], wherein:
the spray has a particle size distribution including a Dv50 particle size distribution [0022] of less than about 150 µm ([0022], the DV50 is at least above 10 nm which is equivalent to 0.01 micrometer);
the coating having a residual coating coverage efficiency ([0054 and 0074] Buskens et al. recognizes the importance of providing a stable and immobilized or composition that is properly adhere to the substrate) having a surface area of least 100 micrometer2, more preferably at least 1 mm2;
As to the limitation that the coating covers a majority of the surface and provides a durable coating on the surface for a time period so as to provide residual sanitization and/or disinfection to such surface for such time period; Buskens et al. teaches adding antibacterial component [0075] to the composition. It is clear that Buskens et al. aims to disinfect the surface of a substrate. It is also clear that depending on the size and the degree of contamination of a substrate, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize to incorporate more or less of the antibacterial agent and to increase or decrease the time of applying the antibacterial agent in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected;
a formulation [0094], wherein the formulation provides sanitization and/or disinfection
[0075] to an applied surface [0093] against a target microbe; and
a device [0093] including a sprayer (the sprayer device used to spray the coating on a substrate) configured to spray the formulation onto the surface as a coating, wherein:
the spray has a particle size distribution including a Dv50 particle size distribution [0022] of less than about 150 µm ([0022], the DV50 is at least above 10 nm which is equivalent to 0.01 micrometer);
As to the limitation that the coating covers at least 60% of the surface and provides a durable coating that remains present on the surface for a time period of from about 1 day to about 7 days; Buskens et al. teaches adding antibacterial component [0075] to the composition. It is clear that Buskens et al. aims to disinfect the surface of a substrate. It is also clear that depending on the size and the degree of contamination of a substrate, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize to incorporate more or less of the antibacterial agent and to increase (1day to about 7 days) or decrease (1 day) the time of applying the antibacterial agent in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected;
providing a device that includes a sprayer configured to spray a formulation onto
a surface as a coating, wherein the spray has an Dv50 particle size distribution that is less
than about 150 µm; and
As to the limitation of creating a coating on the surface, wherein the coating covers at least 50% of the surface and forms a durable coating that remains present on the surface for at least about 12 hours; Buskens et al. teaches creating a coating on the surface [0093-0094], and also teaches adding antibacterial component [0075] to the composition. It is clear that Buskens et al. aims to disinfect the surface of a substrate. It is also clear that depending on the size and the degree of contamination of a substrate, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize to incorporate more or less of the antibacterial agent and to increase (12 hours) or decrease (less than 12 hours) the time of applying the antibacterial agent in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected.
As to the limitations that the spray has a Dv90 particle size distribution of no more than about 500 µm, and a DV10 particle size distribution of no more than about 80 µm; Buskens et al. discloses that the spray has a DV50 particle size distribution [0022] of less than about 150 µm ([0022], the DV50 is at least above 10 nm which is equivalent to 0.01 micrometer). However, one of ordinary would recognize that depending on the type of the surface of the substrate to be disinfected, and also on the degree of contamination of the substrate, to either choose the particle size distribution to be 10% DV10 (10% of the particles has a particle size smaller size than 0.1 um) or 90% DV90 (90% of the particles has a particle size smaller than 0.9 um) in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected.
Buskens et al. appears silent to explicitly disclose that the coating has a residual coating coverage efficiency of at least about 30 cm²/mm².
Hamashima discloses a lubricant composition [0001] having a particle size distribution of D50 [0035] and also having an excellent adherence property [0049 and 0054] where the composition exhibits improved adherence efficiencies and also adheres firmly to a surface of a die (adherence is equivalent to residual coating coverage efficiency).
Hamashima appears silent to explicitly disclose the inherent residual coating efficiency values so that the lubricant composition would exhibit improved adherence efficiencies and also would adhere firmly to a surface of a die. However, depending on the type of the substrate, i.e., metal or polymer or glass or fiber, one of ordinary skill in the art that the residual coating efficiency values (i.e., adherence values) would vary from one type of substrate to another such that choosing the appropriate residual coating efficiency value (at least about 30 cm²/mm²) is an obvious matter of routine experimentation to obtain the expected results. It is noted that the application disclosure [0061-0062 and 0068] does not provide any criticality or unexpected results in calculating the residual coating efficiency value of 30 cm²/mm². 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 to add Hamashima improved adherence efficiencies properties to Buskens et al. system and method in order to provide a coating composition that exhibits an improved adherence efficiencies and also adheres firmly to a surface of a substate.
Regarding claims 2-3, Buskens et al. appears silent to explicitly teach time period values to provide disinfection to the substrates.
Buskens et al. teaches adding antibacterial component [0075] to the composition. It is clear that Buskens et al. aims to disinfect the surface of a substrate. It is also clear that depending on the size and the degree of contamination of a substrate, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize to incorporate more or less of the antibacterial agent and to increase (12 hours to about 1month) or decrease (1 day to about 7 days) the time of applying the antibacterial agent in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected. 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 to increase or decrease the inherent time periods of Buskens et al. for disinfecting substrates in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected.
Regarding claim 4, Buskens et al. teaches that the spray has a particle size distribution including a Dv50 particle size distribution [0022] of less than about 150 µm ([0022], the DV50 is at least above 10 nm which is equivalent to 0.01 µm).
Buskens et al. appears silent to disclose that the spray has a DV10 particle size distribution from about 50 µm to about of no more than about 80 µm, and a Dv90 particle size distribution of less than about 500 µm. However, one of ordinary would recognize that depending on the type of the surface of the substrate to be disinfected, and also on the degree of contamination of the substrate, to either choose the particle size distribution to be 10% DV10 (10% of the particles has a particle size smaller size than 0.1 um) or 90% DV90 (90% of the particles has a particle size smaller than 0.9 um) in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that depending on the degree of contamination of the substrate is to choose the appropriate volumes of either the DV10 particle size distribution or the DV90 particle size distribution in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected. 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 to change Buskens et al. DV50 particle size distribution to either DV10 or DV90 particle size distributions in order to ensure that the substrate is completely sanitized or disinfected.
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 18, Buskens et al. teaches that the coating is a polymer-based coating [0047-0048].
Regarding claim 6, the coating of Buskins et al. is capable of being resilient [0074] to rubbing, abrasion, or other removal methods for the time period.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 19-20, the formulation of Buskens et al. provides disinfection and sanitization [0075].
Regarding claims 9-10, Buskens et al. appears silent to disclose that the coating covers at least 60% or at least about 70% of the surface.
Buskens et al. teaches adding antibacterial component [0075] to the composition and spraying the composition on various different substrates [0093-0094]. One of ordinary skill would recognize to coat the substrates to more than 60% or 70% of the surfaces of the substrates in order to ensure that the substrates are completely sanitized or disinfected. 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 to spray the antimicrobial coat on most or all of the surfaces (60% or 70% of the surfaces of the substrates) of the substrates in order to ensure that the substrates are completely sanitized or disinfected.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Buskens et al. discloses that the surface is a hard surface [0018].
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the coating [0001] of Buskens et al. is capable of being substantially transparent on the surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799