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 action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received August 6, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hanson et al, US 11,026,422.
Hanson et al teach an antimicrobial wipe saturated with a composition having a pH of from 2 to 4 (claims 1, 5, and 8) comprising LAS, nonionic surfactant, and lactic acid (col. 31, table 10 A). These compositions are used on hard surfaces and do not result in streaky, hazy or tacky residues (col. 1, lines 14-25). As the composition of the reference is identical to the composition claimed, whatever properties achieved by the claimed composition will also be achieved by the composition of the reference. As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the composition of the reference does not improve the shine of the surface and this is addressed above.
Claims 1-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dreilinger et al, US 2010/0240752.
Dreilinger et al teach a hard surface cleaning wipe saturated with a composition having a pH of approximately 3 comprising secondary alkane sulfonate, nonionic surfactants, lactic acid, and citric acid (¶122, examples E5 and E7). As the composition of the reference is identical to the composition claimed, whatever properties achieved by the claimed composition will also be achieved by the composition of the reference. As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the composition of the reference does not improve the shine of the surface and this is addressed above.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Joseph, US 2017/0304478.
Joseph teaches a disinfectant wipe dispenser for hospitals and medical treatment facilities (¶2) comprising a container with two compartments. One compartment for wipes, and one compartment for a disinfectant composition (see abstract). The disinfectant composition is in tablet form and comprises 15% citric acid, lauryl sulfate, and dodecylbenzene sulfonate (¶144). The examiner maintains that due to the high amount of acid in the composition, the diluted use composition will have a pH within the range claimed. As the composition of the reference is identical to the composition claimed, whatever properties achieved by the claimed composition will also be achieved by the composition of the reference.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the composition of the reference does not improve the shine of the surface and this is addressed above.
All remaining rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al, US 2023/0111060.
Frank et al teach a disinfecting wipe with a pH of 5 (claim 1) saturated with a composition comprising secondary alkane sulfonate, and citric acid (¶106, table 2E). These compositions may be used on hard surfaces (¶40) and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the disinfecting wipe of table 2E on a hard surface with confidence of achieving a disinfected surface. With respect to the wipe improving the shine of a surface, as the composition of the reference is identical to the composition claimed, whatever properties achieved by the claimed composition will also be achieved by the composition of the reference once the composition is used on a hard surface.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al, US 2017/0202753.
Smith et al teach a personal cleansing wipe with a pH of less than 5 (¶91) saturated with a composition comprising sodium stearate, additional surfactant, and citric acid (¶149, example 10). These compositions may be used on hard surfaces (¶97) and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the disinfecting wipe of example 10 on a hard surface with confidence of achieving a disinfected surface. With respect to the wipe improving the shine of a surface, as the composition of the reference is identical to the composition claimed, whatever properties achieved by the claimed composition will also be achieved by the composition of the reference once the composition is used on a hard surface.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carty et al, US 2023/0381068.
Carty et al teach a disposable wipe saturated with a personal cleansing composition (claim 24) comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, lactic acid, and citric acid with a pH of 4.32 (¶253, example 7). These compositions may be used on hard surfaces (¶4) and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the disinfecting wipe of example 7 on a hard surface with confidence of achieving a disinfected surface. With respect to the wipe improving the shine of a surface, as the composition of the reference is identical to the composition claimed, whatever properties achieved by the claimed composition will also be achieved by the composition of the reference once the composition is used on a hard surface.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights