DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line, the limitation “detect the portion on the surface” should be revised to --detect the mixture on the surface-- because the portion is recited above to remain airborne and the mixture is recited to settle on the surface. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. Regarding claims 3, 6, 12, 14, and 15, the limitation wherein the marker is “not readily visible under normal lighting conditions” is interpreted broadly as “not readily detectable under visible light”, for claim definiteness. Such an interpretation is irrespective of individual differences in eyesight and indoor/outdoor lighting, consistent with the thrust of the invention as outlined in the Specification e.g., in par 0044.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 2-4, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Regarding claim 2, “wherein the ____ comprises” is missing a word that lends to an indefinite scope, as it is unclear whether the container, the mixture, the marker, or something else is to comprise this melamine powder.
7. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mister" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and this limitation should likely be revised to --the nozzle--.
8. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected as indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
9. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cleaning" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as though dependent on claim 4 to reference the cleaning of the surface therein.
10. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the fixed-cone nozzle" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ Product Catalog 2016 (glogerm.com/pdf/GGPCatalogFinal.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org dating from 08 February 2016, hereinafter “Glo Germ”).
13. Regarding claim 1, Glo Germ teaches a method for checking cleanliness of a surface (coat surfaces of test area…to reveal where dangerous practices can lead to cross-contamination, Page 9 right column), the method comprising:
providing a container coupled to a pump and a nozzle (Glo Germ MIST spray canister…easy to use pump canister for airborne microbe simulation, Page 8 left column), the container comprising a mixture (pour Glo Germ MIST Refill bottle into MIST Spray Canister, Page 9 right column) that comprises a marker (UV light…will fluoresce Glo Germ, Page 9 left column; after a dry time, Glo Germ MIST is virtually invisible to the naked eye [indicating Glo Germ marker is carried by a solvent that is evaporated], Page 9 right column) to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle (a quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column);
wherein the spraying the mixture (i) simultaneously releases droplets (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column) and a mist comprising the mixture (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) and (ii) allows the mixture to settle on a surface (evenly coat surfaces of test area, Page 9 right column).
In the description of using the Glo Germ mist on the right column of Page 9, the pamphlet does not explicitly teach shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect the marker on the surface. However, in the method of use described for other embodiments of the Glo Germ product, the pamphlet teaches a step of using a UV lamp to show how “glowing germs” of Glo Germ marker are spread on surfaces (page 12 left and right cols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of using the Glo Germ mist a step of shining ultraviolet light on the surface as taught by Glo Germ, because this would predictably detect the fluorescent marker deposited on the surface in a similar manner and advantageously indicate which areas need cleaning for improved hygiene, which involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
14. Regarding claim 3, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the marker, once sprayed from the mister (quick spray into the air after pumping spray canister, Page 9 right column), is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions (Glo Germ MIST is virtually invisible to the naked eye, Page 9 right column) but is readily visible under ultraviolet light (beam of UV light will fluoresce Glo Germ in broad daylight, Page 9 left column).
15. Regarding claim 4, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 3, though the description of using the Glo Germ mist on the right column of Page 9 does not explicitly teach cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface; and shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
However, in the method of use described for other embodiments of the Glo Germ product, the pamphlet teaches a step of cleaning the surface until all visible Glo Germ disappears then passing the UV lamp over the surface so that the remaining traces of Glo Germ
will glow on the areas that were not cleaned thoroughly (page 12 left and right cols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of using the Glo Germ mist a step of cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface before shining ultraviolet light on the surface as taught by Glo Germ, because this would predictably detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface by fluorescently identifying areas that were not cleaned thoroughly, a modification that involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
16. Regarding claim 6, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the cleaning of the surface is done under the normal lighting conditions in which the marker is not readily visible (clean the surface until all visible Glo Germ disappears before passing UV lamp over the surface, Page 12 left column).
17. Regarding claim 15, Glo Germ teaches a method for checking cleanliness of a surface (coat surfaces of test area…to reveal where dangerous practices can lead to cross-contamination, Page 9 right column), the method comprising:
spraying (quick spray into the air, Page 9 right column) a mixture that comprises a marker (UV light…will fluoresce Glo Germ, Page 9 left column; after a dry time, Glo Germ MIST is virtually invisible to the naked eye [indicating Glo Germ marker is carried by a solvent that is evaporated], Page 9 right column), wherein at least a portion of the mixture remains airborne after the mixture has been sprayed (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column), wherein the marker, once sprayed, is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions (Glo Germ MIST is virtually invisible to the naked eye, Page 9 right column), but is readily visible under ultraviolet light (beam of UV light will fluoresce Glo Germ in broad daylight, Page 9 left column);
wherein the spraying the mixture (i) simultaneously releases droplets (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column) and a mist comprising the mixture (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) and (ii) allows the mixture to settle on a surface (evenly coat surfaces of test area, Page 9 right column).
The description of using the Glo Germ mist on the right column of Page 9 does not explicitly teach cleaning the surface under the normal lighting conditions to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface; and shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
However, in the method of use described for other embodiments of the Glo Germ product, the pamphlet teaches a step of cleaning the surface until all visible Glo Germ disappears then passing the UV lamp over the surface so that the remaining traces of Glo Germ
will glow on the areas that were not cleaned thoroughly (page 12 left and right cols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of using the Glo Germ mist the steps of cleaning the surface under the visible lighting conditions to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface and then shining ultraviolet light on the surface as taught by Glo Germ, because this would predictably detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface by fluorescently identifying areas that were not cleaned thoroughly, a modification that involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
18. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GLO GERM™ MIST Refill Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/MIST_SDS.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 30 July 2015, hereinafter “MIST SDS”), GLO GERM™ POWDER Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/msds-glogerm-powder.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 19 September 2015, hereinafter “POWDER SDS”), and Sze To et al (“Experimental Study of Dispersion and Deposition of Expiratory Aerosols in Aircraft Cabins and Impact on Infectious Disease Transmission”, Aerosol Science and Technology, 43:466–485, 2009).
Regarding claim 2, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the [mixture] comprises Glo Germ MIST having a particle size suitable to allow the portion of the mixture to remain airborne (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) to replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column).
The Glo Germ pamphlet does not specifically teach that the Glo Germ MIST product comprises melamine powder nor that the particle size would be less than 100 µm.
The MIST SDS teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes in its formulation Glo Germ™ White Powder <10% (Section 3), which the POWDER SDS teaches comprises 100% melamine resin (Section 3). Thus, the MIST product comprises melamine powder, no modification necessary.
Sze To teaches an analogous droplet generator to simulate a coughing passenger (page 468 second par) using a fluorescence dye technique similar to that employed in numerous studies on particle deposition mechanisms (page 473 second par) wherein aerosols smaller than 5 µm in size was a major component accounted more than 50% of deposited droplets in most seats (page 476 first par), reading upon wherein the particle size is less than 100 µm to similarly simulate the distribution patterns for airborne infection transmission (page 476 first par).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the melamine powder containing droplets in the method of Glo Germ with a particle size that is less than 100 µm as taught by Sze To, because this particle size would, with a reasonable expectation of success based on the results of Sze To, allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
19. Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sze To et al (“Experimental Study of Dispersion and Deposition of Expiratory Aerosols in Aircraft Cabins and Impact on Infectious Disease Transmission”, Aerosol Science and Technology, 43:466–485, 2009).
20. Regarding claim 5, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the marker in the mixture has a particle size that allows that the MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes (Page 9 right column). The Glo Germ pamphlet does not specifically teach that the particle size is less than about 8pm in width.
Sze To teaches an analogous droplet generator to simulate a coughing passenger (page 468 second par) using a fluorescence dye technique similar to that employed in numerous studies on particle deposition mechanisms (page 473 second par) wherein aerosols smaller than 5 µm in size was a major component accounted more than 50% of deposited droplets in most seats (page 476 first par), thus marker detected in these aerosols thus must have a particle size less than 8 µm in width. Sze To teaches that this particle size remains airborne to similarly simulate the distribution patterns for airborne infection transmission (page 476 first par).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the marker-containing droplets in the method of Glo Germ with a particle size that is less than about 8 µm as taught by Sze To, because this particle size would, with a reasonable expectation of success based on the results of Sze To, allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
21. Regarding claim 7, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising manually pumping the pump to increase pressure within the container (pump MIST Spray Canister lid 12 times or until mildly firm, page 9 right column) such that when the mixture is sprayed from the nozzle, the nozzle simultaneously releases the droplets and the mist (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, page 9 right column). The Glo Germ pamphlet does not specifically teach the droplets having their width between 50 µm and 200 µm and the particles of the mist having their width between 0.4 µm and 30 µm.
Sze To teaches an analogous droplet generator to simulate a coughing passenger (page 468 second par) using a fluorescence dye technique similar to that employed in numerous studies on particle deposition mechanisms (page 473 second par) wherein the dispersion pattern of simulated expiratory aerosols are divided into size bins from 0.3 µm to 20 µm and aerosols larger than 20 µm in size (page 471 second par). Although the droplet size of Sze To has a wider range than the claimed range of between 50µm and 200µm, the overlapping range is considered obvious in view of the prior art as both ranges are purported to be representative of a simulated biological dispersion from a cough/sneeze and the droplet size is not shown to be critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the marker-containing droplets in the method of Glo Germ with a mist particle size between 0.4 µm and 30 µm and droplets having their width between 50 µm and 200 µm as taught by Sze To, because these particle sizes would, with a reasonable expectation of success based on the results of Sze To, allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle and fall into ranges that can be obtained through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
22. Regarding claim 8, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the marker has a width suitable to allow a portion of the mist that comprises the marker to remain airborne (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) to help replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, page 9 right column). The Glo Germ pamphlet does not specifically teach that this width is between about 2 microns and 8 microns.
Sze To teaches an analogous droplet generator to simulate a coughing passenger (page 468 second par) using a fluorescence dye technique similar to that employed in numerous studies on particle deposition mechanisms (page 473 second par) wherein aerosols smaller than 5 µm in size was a major component accounted more than 50% of deposited droplets in most seats (page 476 first par). The overlapping range is considered obvious in view of the prior art as both ranges are purported to be representative of a simulated biological dispersion from a cough/sneeze and the droplet size is not shown to be critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the marker-containing droplets in the method of Glo Germ with a marker width between about 2 µm and about 8 µm as taught by Sze To, because these particle sizes would, with a reasonable expectation of success based on the results of Sze To, allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle and fall into a range that can be obtained through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
23. Claims 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ Product Catalog 2016 (glogerm.com/pdf/GGPCatalogFinal.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org dating from 08 February 2016, hereinafter “Glo Germ”) in view of Sze To et al (“Experimental Study of Dispersion and Deposition of Expiratory Aerosols in Aircraft Cabins and Impact on Infectious Disease Transmission”, Aerosol Science and Technology, 43:466–485, 2009).
24. Regarding claim 9, Glo Germ teaches a method for checking cleanliness of a surface (coat surfaces of test area…to reveal where dangerous practices can lead to cross-contamination, Page 9 right column), the method comprising:
spraying a mixture that comprises a marker (UV light…will fluoresce Glo Germ, Page 9 left column; after a dry time, Glo Germ MIST is virtually invisible to the naked eye [indicating Glo Germ marker is carried by a solvent that is evaporated], Page 9 right column) having a particulate size suitable to allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column);
wherein the spraying the mixture (i) simultaneously releases droplets (quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column) and a mist comprising the mixture (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) and (ii) allows the mixture to settle on a surface (evenly coat surfaces of test area, Page 9 right column).
In the description of using the Glo Germ mist on the right column of Page 9, the pamphlet does not explicitly teach shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect the marker on the surface. However, in the method of use described for other embodiments of the Glo Germ product, the pamphlet teaches a step of using a UV lamp to show how “glowing germs” of Glo Germ marker are spread on surfaces (page 12 left and right cols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of using the Glo Germ mist a step of shining ultraviolet light on the surface as taught by Glo Germ, because this would predictably detect the fluorescent marker deposited on the surface in a similar manner and advantageously indicate which areas need cleaning for improved hygiene, which involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The Glo Germ pamphlet is silent regarding particle size thus does not specifically teach a particle size that is smaller than about 100 µm.
Sze To teaches an analogous droplet generator to simulate a coughing passenger (page 468 second par) using a fluorescence dye technique similar to that employed in numerous studies on particle deposition mechanisms (page 473 second par) wherein aerosols smaller than 5 µm in size was a major component accounted more than 50% of deposited droplets in most seats (page 476 first par), reading upon wherein the particle size is less than 100 µm to similarly simulate the distribution patterns for airborne infection transmission (page 476 first par).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the melamine powder containing droplets in the method of Glo Germ with a particle size that is less than 100 µm as taught by Sze To, because this particle size would, with a reasonable expectation of success based on the results of Sze To, allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
25. Regarding claim 12, Glo Germ as modified by Sze To teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the sprayed marker is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions (Glo Germ MIST is virtually invisible to the naked eye, Page 9 right column) but is readily visible under ultraviolet light (beam of UV light will fluoresce Glo Germ in broad daylight, Page 9 left column).
26. Regarding claim 13, Glo Germ as modified by Sze To teaches the method of claim 9, though the description of using the Glo Germ mist on the right column of Page 9 does not explicitly teach cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface; and shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
However, in the method of use described for other embodiments of the Glo Germ product, the pamphlet teaches a step of cleaning the surface until all visible Glo Germ disappears then passing the UV lamp over the surface so that the remaining traces of Glo Germ
will glow on the areas that were not cleaned thoroughly (page 12 left and right cols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of using the Glo Germ mist a step of cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface before shining ultraviolet light on the surface as taught by Glo Germ, because this would predictably detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface by fluorescently identifying areas that were not cleaned thoroughly, a modification that involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
27. Regarding claim 14, Glo Germ as modified by Sze To teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the cleaning of the surface is done under the normal lighting conditions in which the marker is not readily visible (clean the surface until all visible Glo Germ disappears before passing UV lamp over the surface, Page 12 left column).
28. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ and Sze To as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of GLO GERM™ MIST Refill Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/MIST_SDS.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 30 July 2015, hereinafter “MIST SDS”).
29. Regarding claim 10, Glo Germ as modified by Sze To teaches the method of claim 9, but the Glo Germ pamphlet is silent regarding the composition of the mist mixture . Thus, the combination does not specifically teach wherein the mixture further comprises water and the water accounts for between about 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the marker comprises between about 3% and about 15%, by weight, of the mixture.
The MIST SDS teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes distilled water at <91% and Glo Germ™ White Powder at <10% (Section 3), and as components should add to 100% the ranges overlap with sufficient specificity according to MPEP 2131.03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the Glo Germ mist mixture using water between about 70% and about 95% by weight and the marker between about 3% and about 15%, by weight as described by the MIST SDS, because this would predictably provide the dispersive and fluorescence properties that derive the utility of the Glo Germ mist and simply involves consulting the SDS for the formulation of the mist product. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
30. Regarding claim 11, Glo Germ as modified by Sze To teaches the method of claim 10, but the Glo Germ pamphlet is silent regarding the composition of the mist mixture so the combination does not specifically teach wherein the mixture further comprises a surfactant and an anti-foaming agent, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.01% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture.
The MIST SDS further teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes an anti-foaming agent at <.04% and a suffocant [sic] at .01% (Section 3). These compositions overlap the claimed range in a manner that is considered obvious in view of the prior art as the specific concentrations of these solution stabilizers is not shown to be critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the Glo Germ mist mixture formulation an anti-foaming agent between 0.01% and 0.05% by weight and a surfactant between 0.002% and 0.05% as described by the MIST SDS, because this would predictably provide the dispersive and fluorescence properties that derive the utility of the Glo Germ mist and simply involves consulting the SDS for the formulation of the mist product. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
31. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of GLO GERM™ MIST Refill Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/MIST_SDS.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 30 July 2015, hereinafter “MIST SDS”).
32. Regarding claim 16, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 15, but the Glo Germ pamphlet is silent regarding the composition of the mist mixture so the combination does not specifically teach wherein the mixture further comprises water, a surfactant, and an anti-foaming agent, wherein the water accounts for between 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the marker comprises between 3% and 15%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.01% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture.
The MIST SDS teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes distilled water at <91% and Glo Germ™ White Powder at <10% (Section 3), and as components should add to 100% the ranges overlap with sufficient specificity according to MPEP 2131.03. The MIST SDS further teaches that the formulation includes an anti-foaming agent at <.04% and a suffocant [sic] at .01% (Section 3). These compositions overlap the claimed range in a manner that is considered obvious in view of the prior art as the specific concentrations of these solution stabilizers is not shown to be critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the Glo Germ mist mixture according to the MIST SDS including water between 70% and 95% by weight, a marker between 3% and 15% by weight, an anti-foaming agent between 0.01% and 0.05% by weight, and a surfactant between 0.002% and 0.05% by weight as described by the MIST SDS, because this would predictably provide the dispersive and fluorescence properties that derive the utility of the Glo Germ mist and simply involves consulting the SDS for the formulation of the mist product. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
33. Regarding claim 18, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 15, but the Glo Germ pamphlet is silent regarding the composition of the mist mixture so the combination does not specifically teach wherein the mixture further comprises water, a surfactant, and an anti-foaming agent, wherein the water accounts for between 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the marker comprises between 8.75% and 10.45%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.03% and 0.08%, by weight, of the mixture.
The MIST SDS teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes distilled water at <91% and Glo Germ™ White Powder at <10% (Section 3), and as components should add to 100% the ranges overlap with sufficient specificity according to MPEP 2131.03. The MIST SDS further teaches that the formulation includes an anti-foaming agent at <.04% and a suffocant [sic] at .01% (Section 3). These compositions overlap the claimed range in a manner that is considered obvious in view of the prior art as the specific concentrations of these solution stabilizers is not shown to be critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the Glo Germ mist mixture according to the MIST SDS including water between 70% and 95% by weight, a marker between 8.75% and 10.45% by weight, an anti-foaming agent between 0.03% and 0.08% by weight, and a surfactant between 0.002% and 0.05% by weight as described by the MIST SDS, because this would predictably provide the dispersive and fluorescence properties that derive the utility of the Glo Germ mist and simply involves consulting the SDS for the formulation of the mist product. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
34. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of GLO GERM™ MIST Refill Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/MIST_SDS.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 30 July 2015, hereinafter “MIST SDS”) and Sze To et al (“Experimental Study of Dispersion and Deposition of Expiratory Aerosols in Aircraft Cabins and Impact on Infectious Disease Transmission”, Aerosol Science and Technology, 43:466–485, 2009).
Regarding claim 17, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the marker comprises a fluorescent marker that has a width suitable to allow a portion of the mist that comprises the fluorescent marker to remain airborne (MIST may remain suspended in the air for up to 5 minutes, Page 9 right column) to help replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle (a quick spray into the air will simulate a sneeze or cough, Page 9 right column). The Glo Germ pamphlet does not specifically teach that the marker within the mist is powdered, that the width is between about 2 microns and about 8 microns, nor that the nozzle is a fixed-cone nozzle.
The MIST SDS teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes in its formulation Glo Germ™ White Powder <10% (Section 3), reading upon wherein the fluorescent marker is powdered with no modification needed.
Sze To teaches an analogous droplet generator to simulate a coughing passenger (page 468 second par) using a fluorescence dye technique similar to that employed in numerous studies on particle deposition mechanisms (page 473 second par) wherein aerosols smaller than 5 µm in size was a major component accounted more than 50% of deposited droplets in most seats (page 476 first par), reading upon wherein the particle size is less than 8 µm to similarly simulate the distribution patterns for airborne infection transmission (page 476 first par). Sze To further teaches that the simulated saliva is ejected via a nozzle that has an air cap to produce a full-cone injection spray ( page 469).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the marker-containing droplets in the method of Glo Germ with a marker width between about 2 µm and about 8 µm as taught by Sze To, because these particle sizes would, with a reasonable expectation of success based on the results of Sze To, allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle and fall into a range that can be obtained through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2143(I)(G). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ for the nozzle of the Glo Germ canister a fixed-cone nozzle as taught by Sze To, because a fixed-cone nozzle is demonstrated to simulate respiratory biological dispersions in a similar manner and involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
35. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of GLO GERM™ MIST Refill Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/MIST_SDS.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 30 July 2015, hereinafter “MIST SDS”), GLO GERM™ POWDER Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/msds-glogerm-powder.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 19 September 2015, hereinafter “POWDER SDS”), and Sze To et al (“Experimental Study of Dispersion and Deposition of Expiratory Aerosols in Aircraft Cabins and Impact on Infectious Disease Transmission”, Aerosol Science and Technology, 43:466–485, 2009).
Regarding claim 19, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 15, but the Glo Germ pamphlet does not specifically teach that the marker in the Glo Germ MIST product comprises powdered melamine resin having a width of less than about 8 µm.
The MIST SDS teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes in its formulation Glo Germ™ White Powder <10% (Section 3), which the POWDER SDS teaches comprises 100% melamine resin (Section 3). Thus, the MIST product is known to comprise a powdered melamine resin, no modification necessary.
Sze To teaches an analogous droplet generator to simulate a coughing passenger (page 468 second par) using a fluorescence dye technique similar to that employed in numerous studies on particle deposition mechanisms (page 473 second par) wherein aerosols smaller than 5 µm in size was a major component accounted more than 50% of deposited droplets in most seats (page 476 first par), reading upon wherein the particle size is less than 8 µm to similarly simulate the distribution patterns for airborne infection transmission (page 476 first par).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the powdered melamine resin- containing droplets in the method of Glo Germ with a particle size that is less than 8 µm as taught by Sze To, because this particle size would, with a reasonable expectation of success based on the results of Sze To, allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
36. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glo Germ as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of GLO GERM™ MIST Refill Safety Data Sheet (glogerm.com/pdf/MIST_SDS.pdf, accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org and dating from 30 July 2015, hereinafter “MIST SDS”) and Powell et al (US 5804544 A).
Regarding claim 20, Glo Germ teaches the method of claim 15, but does not specifically teach wherein the mixture further comprises an anti-foaming agent that comprises polydimethylsiloxane.
The MIST SDS teaches that the formulation for the MIST product for use in the MIST spray canister (Section 1) includes an anti-foaming agent (Section 3) but holds this agent as a trade secret thus does not teach the specific antifoaming agent polydimethylsiloxane.
Powell teaches a spray-on composition wherein the antifoam compound is preferably polydimethylsiloxane (Abstract, col 5 lines 34-49), showing viability of this particular antifoam compound in a similar sprayable medium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the Glo Germ mist mixture an antifoaming agent as taught by the MIST SDS, which simply involves consulting the SDS for the formulation of the mist product. See MPEP 2143(I)(G). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose polydimethylsiloxane as this antifoaming agent as taught by Powell, because this would predictably provide the same benefit of minimizing irregularities in deposited fluorescent marker and involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Double Patenting
37. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
38. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,275,022.
Present
U.S. Patent No. 12,275,022
1. A method for checking cleanliness of a surface, the method comprising:
providing a
container coupled to a pump and a nozzle, the container comprising a mixture that comprises a
marker having a particulate size that allows a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle;
spraying the mixture from the nozzle so as to: (i) simultaneously release droplets and a mist comprising the mixture
and (ii) allow the mixture to settle on a surface; and
shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect the marker on the surface.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the comprises melamine powder having a particle size that is less than 100 µm to allow the portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the marker, once sprayed from the mister, is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions, but is readily visible under ultraviolet light.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface; and
shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the marker in the mixture has a particle size that is less than about 8µm in width.
6. The method of claim 3, wherein the cleaning is done under the normal lighting conditions in which the marker is not readily visible.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising manually pumping the pump to increase pressure within the container such that when the mixture is sprayed from the nozzle, the nozzle simultaneously releases the droplets and the mist, with the droplets having their width between 50µm and 200µm and the particles of the mist having their width between 0.4µm and 30µm.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the marker has a width between about 2 microns and about 8 microns to allow a portion of the mist that comprises the marker to remain airborne to help replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle.
9. A method for checking cleanliness of a surface, the method comprising:
spraying a mixture that comprises a marker having a particulate size that is smaller than about 100µm to allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed;
wherein the spraying the mixture (i)
simultaneously releases droplets and a mist comprising the mixture and (ii) allows the mixture to settle on a surface; and
shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect the portion on the surface.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the mixture further comprises water and the water accounts for between about 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the marker comprises between about 3% and about 15%, by weight, of the mixture.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the mixture further comprises a surfactant and an anti-foaming agent, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.01% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture.
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the sprayed marker is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions but is readily visible under ultraviolet light.
13. The method of claim 9, further comprising:
cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface; and shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the cleaning of the surface is accomplished under the normal lighting conditions.
15. A method for checking cleanliness of a surface, the method comprising:
spraying a mixture that comprises a marker, wherein at least a portion of the mixture remains airborne after the mixture has been sprayed to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion,
wherein the marker, once sprayed, is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions, but is readily visible under ultraviolet light;
wherein the spraying the mixture (i) simultaneously releases droplets and a mist comprising the mixture and
(ii) allows the mixture to settle on a surface;
cleaning the surface under the normal lighting conditions to remove at least a portion of the marker from the surface; and
shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the mixture further comprises water, a surfactant, and an anti-foaming agent, wherein the water accounts for between 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the marker comprises between 3% and 15%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.01% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the marker comprises a fluorescent, powdered marker that has a width between about 2 microns and about 8 microns to allow a portion of the mist that comprises the fluorescent, powdered marker to remain airborne to help replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the fixed-cone nozzle.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein the mixture further comprises water, a surfactant, and an anti-foaming agent, wherein the water accounts for between 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the marker comprises between 8.75% and 10.45%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.03% and 0.08%, by weight, of the mixture.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the marker comprises a powdered melamine resin having a width of less than about 8μm.
20. The method of claim 15, wherein the mixture further comprises an anti-foaming agent that comprises polydimethylsiloxane.
1. A method for checking cleanliness of a surface, the method comprising:
providing a mister, the mister comprising: a container with a pump and a nozzle,
the container comprising a mixture that comprises: a fluorescent, powdered
marker having a particulate size that is smaller than about 100 μm to allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle;
water;
a surfactant to maintain the fluorescent, powdered marker in suspension within the mixture; and
an anti-foaming agent; and
spraying the mixture from the nozzle so as to: (i) simultaneously release droplets and a mist comprising the mixture, wherein the droplets have a width between 50 μm and 8 mm and particles of the mist have a width between 0.4 μm and 40 μm, and (ii) allow the mixture to settle on an area of more than 5 square feet of the surface; and shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect the fluorescent marker on the surface.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker comprises melamine powder having a particle size that is less than 100 µ to allow the portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker, once sprayed from the mister, is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions, but is readily visible under ultraviolet light.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the fluorescent, powdered marker from the surface; and
shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker in the mixture has a particle size that is less than about 8 µ in width.
6. The method of claim 3, wherein the cleaning is done under the normal lighting conditions in which the fluorescent, powdered marker is not readily visible.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising manually pumping the pump to increase pressure within the container such that when the mixture is sprayed from the nozzle, the nozzle simultaneously releases the droplets and the mist, with the droplets having their width between 50 µ and 200 µ and the particles of the mist having their width between 0.4 µ and 30 µ.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker has a width between about 2 microns and about 8 microns to allow a portion of the mist that comprises the fluorescent, powdered marker to remain airborne to help replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the nozzle.
9. A method for checking cleanliness of a surface, the method comprising: providing a mister, the mister comprising:
a container with a pump and a fixed-cone nozzle, the container comprising a mixture that comprises: a fluorescent, powdered marker having a particulate size that is smaller than about 100 µ to allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the fixed-cone nozzle; water; a surfactant to maintain the fluorescent, powdered marker in suspension within the mixture; and an anti-foaming agent; placing the mister at a height that is between 2 and 7 feet above the surface and then
spraying the mixture from the fixed-cone nozzle so as to: (i) simultaneously release droplets and a mist comprising the mixture, wherein the droplets have a width between 50 µ and 8 mm and particles of the mist have a width between 0.4 p and 40 p, and (ii) allow the mixture to settle on the surface over an area of more than 5 square feet;
cleaning the surface to remove at least a portion of the fluorescent, powdered marker from the surface; and
shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the water accounts for between 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker comprises between 3% and 15%, by weight, of the mixture.
11. The method of claim 10,
wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.01% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture.
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker, once sprayed from the mister, is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions, but is readily visible under ultraviolet light, and wherein the cleaning of the surface is accomplished under the normal lighting conditions.
(limitations in bold in claim 9 above)
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker, once sprayed from the mister, is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions, but is readily visible under ultraviolet light, and wherein the cleaning of the surface is accomplished under the normal lighting conditions.
15. A method for checking cleanliness of a surface, the method comprising: providing a mister, the mister comprising: a container with a pump and a fixed-cone nozzle, the container comprising a mixture that comprises: a fluorescent, powdered marker having a particulate size that is smaller than about 100 μm to allow a portion of the mixture to remain airborne to replicate a respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the fixed-cone nozzle, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker, once sprayed from the mister, is not readily visible under normal lighting conditions, but is readily visible under ultraviolet light;
water;
a surfactant to maintain the fluorescent, powdered marker in suspension within the mixture; and
an anti-foaming agent;
placing the mister at a height that is between 2 and 7 feet above the surface and then spraying the mixture from the fixed-cone nozzle so as to: (i) simultaneously release droplets and a mist comprising the mixture, wherein the droplets have a width between 50 μm and 200 μm and particles of the mist have a width between 0.4 μm and 30 μm, and (ii) allow the mixture to settle on the surface over an area of more than 5 square feet and less than 500 square feet;
cleaning the surface under the normal lighting conditions to remove at least a portion of the fluorescent, powdered marker from the surface; and
shining ultraviolet light on the surface to detect an efficacy of the cleaning of the surface.
16. The method of claim 15,
wherein the water accounts for between 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker comprises between 3% and 15%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.01% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker has a width between about 2 microns and about 8 microns to allow a portion of the mist that comprises the fluorescent, powdered marker to remain airborne to help replicate the respiratory biological dispersion after the mixture has been sprayed from the fixed-cone nozzle.
18. The method of claim 15,
wherein the water accounts for between 70% and about 95%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker comprises between 8.75% and 10.45%, by weight, of the mixture, wherein the surfactant comprises between 0.002% and 0.05%, by weight, of the mixture, and wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises between 0.03% and 0.08%, by weight, of the mixture.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the fluorescent, powdered marker comprises a powdered melamine resin having a width of less than about 8 μm.
20. The method of claim 18, wherein the anti-foaming agent comprises polydimethylsiloxane.
39. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim of the present application is anticipated by a corresponding claim or claims of the reference patent, as no further limitation of the subject matter is introduced and the scope of claims is simply broadened.
Conclusion
40. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jones (US 6524390 B1) teaches an analogous method for using an invisible fluorescent additive to check cleanliness of a surface or area (Abstract) wherein ultraviolet light is used to irradiate the space, activating the fluorescent agent deposited on various surfaces to indicate those areas for frequent and more intensive cleaning for improved hygiene and sanitation (col 3 lines 36-54, FIG. 6).
41. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights