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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s remarks filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 14-16, and 18-19 are pending in this application.
Claims 10-11, 14-16, and 18-19 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 12-13, 17, and 20 have been cancelled.
No claims have been amended.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 are under examination in this application.
Maintained Rejections
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP 2016165431A) in view of Yu et al. (High-Pressure Carbon Dioxide Used for Pasteurization in Food Industry, Food Engineering Reviews (2020) 12:364-380).
Fujimura discloses a wipe cleaning disinfection sheet containing nanobubble water that can be used for an infant whose skin is delicate and an elderly person whose skin is weak without adding a cleaning agent or a bactericidal agent to a nonwoven fabric sheet (abstract).
The nanobubbles may be produced by pressurizing and introducing the water to be treated and the gas directly into the static fluid mixer (description of embodiments).
Preservatives MAY be added, but are not disclosed as a required element (description of embodiments).
Regarding claim 2, a nonwoven fabric sheet is a wet wipe substrate.
Regarding claim 3, the nanobubbles can be nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, helium, and mixtures thereof (description of embodiments).
Regarding claims 6-7, Fujimura discloses 0.2L of carbon dioxide dissolved in 1 L of water (Examples), which is 0.009 mol/L. It is the position of the Examiner that 0.009 is “about 0.01” as recited in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 9, the substrate including sheets which can be used to clean infant skin (baby wipes) or as cleansing wipes (Solution).
Fujimura does not disclose the pressure at which the gas is added to the wet wipe formulation.
Yu discloses the bactericidal effect of high pressure carbon dioxide (HPCD) has been known for many years (abstract).
High-pressure carbon dioxide (HPCD) is a type of nonthermal pasteurization that applies pressurized CO2, at between 0.1 MPa (1 bar) and 50 MPa (500 bar). HPCD uses less sophisticated equipment, since most microbes can be inactivated at under 50 MPa. HPCD possesses great potential as a novel, nonthermal pasteurization technology, and the bactericidal effects on various microorganisms (High Pressure Carbon Dioxide).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that 1 bar is 14.5 PSI, therefore Yu discloses HPCD is done between 14.5 PSI to 7251.9 PSI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teachings of Yu in the formulation of Fujimura since Yu is drawn to treatment of food stuffs, the same technique and process can be adapted to topical cosmetic treatment solutions. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2141.01(a) which discloses in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. In the instant case, Yu was attempting to provide bactericidal effects on foodstuffs, whereas the instant claims are attempting to provide bactericidal effects on cosmetic formulations (Instant specification, paragraph 0023).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
*It appears the office is using Applicant’s published application to arrive at the conclusion that the technology disclosed by Yu can be adapted to the formulation of Fujimura.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
*According to the instant specification, it is unknown whether carbon dioxide or other gases are capable of preserving wet solutions during manufacturing.
The Examiner disagrees. According to the teachings of Yu, water content plays an essential role in the bactericidal effect of high-pressure carbon dioxide (HPCD). HPCD technology presents a better inactivation efficiency for liquid materials compared to solids. Therefore, the argued benefit was known at the time of Yu publication.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA S MERCIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30 am to 4 pm EST.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/MELISSA S MERCIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights