DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 10/27/2023, Claims 1-20 are pending. The claim set submitted on 10/27/2023 is considered because this is the most recent claim set. Claims 1-12 are considered in the current office 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2023, 03/21/2025 and 05/19/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026. Group I, Claims 1-12 are considered on the merits below.
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 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 1-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Rowhani et al. (WO2016064792A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rowhani teaches a disinfectant visualization sheet (referred to as test kit [Para 0025]) comprising a base (referred to as an outer package [Para 0025; Fig. 3, ref. 12]) and a color developing portion (referred to as colorimetric test composition [Para 0025]) disposed (See Para 0025… at least one container 20 which holds colorimetric test composition) on the base (referred to as an outer package [Para 0025; Fig. 3, ref. 12]),
wherein the color developing portion (referred to as colorimetric test composition [Para 0025] contained in one container 20) contains a visualization agent (referred to as a mixture of an indicator solution; an anionic reagent solution; and solvent, which is typically water or a water soluble solvent [Para 0015]) of which color developing state changes with application (See Para 0009…comparing the color of the test mixture to a color standard to determine if the disinfectant composition contains an effective amount of the cationic active substance; See Para 0033…the color of the test mixture is observed and compared to a color standard to determine if the disinfectant composition contains an effective amount of the cationic active substance. Alternatively, the user is advised of colors that are acceptable and colors which are not acceptable) of a disinfectant (referred to as cationic active substance in a disinfectant solution [Abstract]) and includes a retaining portion (referred to as a fluid transfer device 30 which is a syringe, dropper, pipette such as a dual bulb pipette, or similar device which will allow a user to transfer a set amount of the solution to be tested to container 20 containing the colorimetric test solution [Para 0027]) arranged to retain (See Para 0027…transfer…) the disinfectant (referred to as cationic active substance in a disinfectant solution [Abstract]).
In addition, Claim 1 recites a base, disinfectant and color developing portion then recites how these structures function. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 2, Rowhani teaches the disinfectant visualization sheet according to Claim 1(See Claim 1 rejection).
The disinfectant visualization sheet of Claim 2 has the same structure as the disinfectant visualization sheet of Claim 1 which is structurally capable of performing the recited claimed functions. Therefore, the condition has been inherently met. Please see MPEP 2112.01 for further details.
Rowhani further teaches that the change in the color developing state indicates occurrence of any of a change from a visually unrecognizable state to a visually recognizable state, a change from a visually recognizable state to a visually unrecognizable state, and a visually recognizable change in color (See Para 0009… comparing the color of the test mixture to a color standard to determine if the disinfectant composition contains an effective amount of the cationic active substance.).
In addition, Claim 2 recites the disinfectant visualization sheet of Claim 1 then recites how this structure functions. Claim 2 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 3, Rowhani teaches that the visualization agent (referred to as a mixture of an indicator solution; an anionic reagent solution; and solvent, which is typically water or a water soluble solvent [Para 0015]) contains a chromic substance (referred to as an indicator solution [Para 0015]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rowhani teaches that the chromic substance (referred to as an indicator solution [Para 0015]) contains the acidichromic substance (referred to as methyl violet [Para 0021]; Also See Para 0063 for the indicators).
Regarding Claim 5, Rowhani teaches that the chromic substance (referred to as an indicator solution [Para 0015]) contains the solvatochromic substance (referred to as an indicator solution [Para 0015]; See Para 0021… nile red).
In addition, Examiner submits that the claimed “solvatochromic substance” is not specifically defined in the specification and will therefore be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Any chromic substance will be considered a “solvatochromic substance”. As such, an indicator solution would satisfy a “solvatochromic substance”.
Regarding Claim 6, Rowhani teaches that the visualization agent (referred to as a mixture of an indicator solution; an anionic reagent solution; and solvent, which is typically water or a water soluble solvent [Para 0015]) is at least one selected from the group consisting of Metanil Yellow, Metacresol Purple, Thymol Blue, Tropaeolin O, Bromophenol Blue, Bromochlorophenol Blue, Alizarin Red S, Bromocresol Green, Methyl Red, Lacmoid, Chlorophenol Red, o-nitrophenol, Bromocresol Purple, Bromophenol Red, Bromothymol Blue, Neutral Red, Phenol Red, Cresol Red, α-naphtolphthalein, phenolphthalein, o-cresolphthalein, thymolphthalein, Alizarin Yellow GG, Alizarin Yellow R, Tropaeolin O, Methyl Violet, litmus, and Methyl Purple (See Para 0021…methyl violet).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rowhani et al. (WO2016064792A1) in view of Farrugia et al. (US20100247371A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Rowhani teaches the retaining portion (referred to as a fluid transfer device 30 which is a syringe, dropper, pipette such as a dual bulb pipette, or similar device…[Para 0027]).
Rowhani does not teach that the retaining portion includes multiple inorganic particles, and voids are formed between the inorganic particles.
In the analogous art of a nonwoven wipe whose color changes from a first color to a second color when the concentration of sanitizer falls below a threshold level, and changes from the second color back to the first color when the concentration of sanitizer is again raised above the threshold level, for repeated cycles of use, Farrugia teaches that the retaining portion (See Abstract… The nonwoven wipe includes a cloth-like nonwoven fabric coated with a reversible color-changing ink formulation) includes multiple inorganic particles (‘silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, calcium carbonate, and combinations thereof. One particularly suitable filler is amorphous silica (amorphous silicon dioxide)’), and voids are formed between the inorganic particles (See Para 0024…The reversible color-changing ink formulation may also include about 1-25% by weight, suitably about 10-20% by weight of a particulate inorganic filler. It has been found that inclusion of a filler helps improve the intensity of the color change, so that the color change becomes more apparent and visible. Suitable particulate fillers include without limitation silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, calcium carbonate, and combinations thereof. One particularly suitable filler is amorphous silica (amorphous silicon dioxide) available from W.R. Grace & Co. under the trade name SYLOID® C 803; Also, Examiner submits that under BRI that particles such as silicon dioxide (SiO₂) particles do have microscopic spaces between them, commonly known as pores, as evidenced by Yakin et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disinfectant visualization sheet of Rowhani to include that the retaining portion includes multiple inorganic particles, and voids are formed between the inorganic particles, as taught by Farrugia for the benefit of improving the intensity of the color change, so that the color change becomes more apparent and visible (Farrugia, Para 0024) which allows for the provision of fabrics impregnated with cleansing solutions, disinfectants and the like which can be recharged multiple times for multiple uses, and which indicate each time when the level of cleansing solution or disinfectant becomes low (Farrugia, Para 0006).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowhani et al. (WO2016064792A1) in view of Farrugia et al. (US20100247371A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Okuda et al. (US20090324857A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the disinfectant visualization sheet of claim 7 is obvious over of Rowhani in view of Farrugia (See Claim 7).
The combination of Rowhani and Farrugia does not teach that a particle size of the inorganic particles is 1 nm or more and 300 nm or less.
In the analogous art of an ink jet recording medium including a substrate a porous layer containing one of a dry-process silica and an alumina hydrate and a silica layer containing spherical colloidal silica particles having a particle size of 105 nm or more and 200 nm or less, Okuda teaches that a particle size of the inorganic particles is 1 nm or more and 300 nm or less (See Abstract… one of a dry-process silica and an alumina hydrate and a silica layer containing spherical colloidal silica particles having a particle size of 105 nm or more and 200 nm or less. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disinfectant visualization sheet of Rowhani and Farrugia to include that a particle size of the inorganic particles is 1 nm or more and 300 nm or less, as taught by Okuda for the benefit of providing an ink jet recording medium which has high glossiness and is excellent for high speed printing with an aqueous pigment ink and an aqueous dye ink, which requires high absorbency of the ink jet recording medium, and is excellent in surface scratch resistance (Okuda, Para 0013) which allows for an ink jet recording medium that can realize both high image quality and ink absorbency, which are required for an ink jet recording medium, and can also be adaptable to high speed printing with an aqueous pigment ink, which requires high absorbency of the ink jet recording medium, and to printing with an aqueous dye ink. Further, there can be provided an ink jet recording medium which has high glossiness and is excellent in surface scratch resistance (Okuda, Para 0015).
Regarding Claim 9, the disinfectant visualization sheet of claim 7 is obvious over of Rowhani in view of Farrugia (See Claim 7).
The combination of Rowhani and Farrugia does not teach that the retaining portion includes at least one selected from the group consisting of pearl-necklace silica particles, chain silica particles, spherical colloidal silica, aspherical colloidal silica, alumina particles, titania particles, and zirconia particles.
In the analogous art of an ink jet recording medium including a substrate a porous layer containing one of a dry-process silica and an alumina hydrate and a silica layer containing spherical colloidal silica particles having a particle size of 105 nm or more and 200 nm or less, Okuda teaches that the retaining portion (referred to as porous layer [Abstract]) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of pearl-necklace silica particles, chain silica particles, spherical colloidal silica, aspherical colloidal silica, alumina particles, titania particles, and zirconia particles (See Abstract… one of a dry-process silica and an alumina hydrate and a silica layer containing spherical colloidal silica particles having a particle size of 105 nm or more and 200 nm or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disinfectant visualization sheet of Rowhani and Farrugia to include that the retaining portion includes at least one selected from the group consisting of pearl-necklace silica particles, chain silica particles, spherical colloidal silica, aspherical colloidal silica, alumina particles, titania particles, and zirconia particles, as taught by Okuda for the benefit of providing an ink jet recording medium which has high glossiness and is excellent for high speed printing with an aqueous pigment ink and an aqueous dye ink, which requires high absorbency of the ink jet recording medium, and is excellent in surface scratch resistance (Okuda, Para 0013) which allows for an ink jet recording medium that can realize both high image quality and ink absorbency, which are required for an ink jet recording medium, and can also be adaptable to high speed printing with an aqueous pigment ink, which requires high absorbency of the ink jet recording medium, and to printing with an aqueous dye ink. Further, there can be provided an ink jet recording medium which has high glossiness and is excellent in surface scratch resistance (Okuda, Para 0015).
Regarding Claim 10, Rowhani teaches that the color developing portion (referred to as colorimetric test composition [Para 0025] contained in one container 20) contains a binder (referred to as an anionic reagent solution [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 11, Rowhani teaches that a protection portion (referred to a a top [Para 0025; Fig. 1, ref. 24]) is disposed (See Fig. 1) on the color developing portion (referred to as colorimetric test composition [Para 0025] contained in one container 20).
Regarding Claim 12, Rowhani teaches that an invisible material (referred to as body 22 of the container 20 [Para 0025]); Also see Para 0026…The containers may be vials or test tubes is placed (See Fig. 1) on the base (referred to as an outer package [Para 0025; Fig. 3, ref. 12]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yakin et al. ("Pore size and porosity dependent zeta potentials of mesoporous silica nanoparticles." The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 124.36 (2020): 19579-19587) teaches that Highly ordered MSNPs in various sizes have been synthesized with uniform and tunable pore sizes (Introduction).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights