DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
3. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 02/10/2026.
Claims 1-37 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 38-43 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong one:
The current claims recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— training and guiding a user in recommended use of janitorial products [using]:
graphical instructional table having a plurality of visually aligned rows and columns with each of the plurality of visually aligned rows including an alpha-numerical representation of a numbered step of the step-by-step order of use of a cleaning product in a first column, an icon assigned to correspond to a represented activity of the numbered step in a second column, and an icon description including written indicia or indicium describing the represented activity corresponding to the numbered step in a third column; training materials for each of the cleaning products, the training materials sequentially walks a viewer through the numbered step-by-step order of use of the cleaning product (per claim 38); a product description for the cleaning product (per claim 39); the product description is provided in at least two different languages (per claim 40); the product description is in a font
that is the largest font on the label (per claim 41); each of the icons comprises a
drawing that conveys the represented activity to be taken or not to be taken for each of the numbered steps (per claim 42); each of the icons comprises a drawing that conveys the represented activity to be taken or not to be taken for each of the numbered steps (per claim 43).
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior (e.g., teaching), wherein training and/or guidance regarding recommended use of janitorial products is presented to a user using: (a) printed information (i.e., “a graphical instructional table having a plurality of visually aligned rows and columns with each of the plurality of visually aligned rows including an alpha-numerical representation of a numbered step of the step-by-step order of use of the cleaning product contained within the product container in a first column, an icon assigned to correspond to a represented activity of the numbered step in a second column, and an icon description including written indicia or indicium describing the represented activity corresponding to the numbered step in a third column”), (b) training materials for each of the cleaning products, wherein the training materials walk the user through numbered step-by-step order of use of the cleaning products, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein (a) a label (e.g., a tag/paper with printed information) affixed to each product container of a plurality of product containers, and (b) a customer portal for accessing—via a website—training materials that include videos, are utilized to facilitate the training and guidance of a user in recommended use of janitorial products.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an “inventive concept”.
Note also that the original disclosure/specification does not encompass any subject matter that amounts to an “inventive concept”. Instead, it is describing subject matter directed to conventional activity in the art; such as:
providing janitorial and/or cleaning products, wherein each product involves a label (i.e. printed matter) that describes the recommended use of the product ([0025], [0029]-[0032], etc.);
selling janitorial and cleaning products via a distributer, and/or e-commerce and retail sales ([0028]);
utilizing conventional devices (via a phone, video or a website) to get support from a distributer regarding the products, and/or to access training materials regarding the products ([0026], [0027], [0043] to [0045], etc.);
complementing the product labels by providing visual and support materials, such as: brochures, posters, product information sheet ([0039 to [0042]), etc.
In addition, such use of conventional tools, namely, (a) the use of a label (e.g., a tag/paper with printed information), which is attached to a container, to provide relevant information to a user, and/or (b) the use of the conventional computer/network technology to provide training materials/videos to a user, etc., are already directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g. (i) US 2011/0196720: see [0020], [0030], etc.; (ii) US 5,851,117: FIG 1 to FIG 8; (ii) US 5,145,377: FIG 1 to FIG 3 and col.3 lines 30-42).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole, none of the current claims is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the claims, when considered as a whole, is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 02/10/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive. In particular, while attempting to recap the Office’s previous response/analysis, Applicant asserts, “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's interpretation of IOENGINE and resulting conclusion that a recent Federal Circuit decision on the printed matter doctrine is somehow ‘irrelevant.’ . . . Just as in IOENGINE and PLR Worldwide Sales, Applicant's claimed ‘graphical instructional table having a plurality of visually aligned rows and columns’ does not constitute printed matter because it refers to the claimed location/layout of the information being communicated and not the content of the actual information being communicated. In other words, similar to the ‘background object’ language found to not constitute printed matter in PLR Worldwide Sales, the claimed graphical instructional table of the present application refers to the ‘location [and layout] of [the information] on the [label], not to the content of any message.’ Id (‘In this case, 'background' refers to the location of an object on the screen, not to the content of any message . . . Applicant's claimed ‘graphical instructional table having a plurality of visually aligned rows and columns’ should not be found to constitute printed matter. Further, Applicant respectfully asserts that when correctly interpreted as structural limitations entitled to patentable weight, the present Section 101 and 103 rejections become moot’)” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s attempt to mischaracterize the Office’s previous response, the issue that the Office considered to be “irrelevant” (e.g., see page 12 of the office action dated 09/10/2025) does not relate to the court’s rationale regarding printed matter and/or IOENGINE. Instead, the issue relates merely to Applicant’s attempt to misapply the case of IOENGINE to the current claims. In particular, Applicant’s is incorrectly assuming that the court’s decision relates to the content itself, as opposed to the way the content is being communicated. Of course, Applicant’s incorrect assumption is further evident given Applicant’s current remark, which emphasizes the line, “content is what the communication actually says” (the part that Applicant has emphasized).
In contrast, the main issue, which the court’s analysis points out per the case of IOENGINE, relates to how—i.e., the mechanism—the content is being communicated electronically, but not what the content actually says (e.g., the topic or message). This is because encrypted communication relates to the way/form of communicating a given content, regardless of what the content is saying. Consequently, Applicant still appears to fail to properly construe the court’s analysis.
In addition, again unlike Applicant’s assumption, the limitation, “graphical instructional table having a plurality of visually aligned rows and columns”, is still the content itself. This is because the user is reading or comprehending the table as a diagram that constitutes an arrangement of vertical and/or horizontal lines, regardless of whether one or more parts of the table also include textual and/or numerical data. It is important to note that content is not necessarily limited to words, phrases or alphanumeric characters. Instead, content encompasses images, symbols, geometric shapes (e.g., an arrangement one or more lines, polygons, etc.). Even a program that is presented to a user in the form of one or more video scenarios is also content (e.g., a tutorial video that shows the best techniques to perform a cleaning task; a news video discussing world politics, etc.), let alone such static textual and/or graphical information depicted on a paper/label. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to substantiate the alleged eligibility of the current claims, while misapplying various court cases (e.g., the cases of IOENGINE and PLR Worldwide Sales), is once again not persuasive.
Thus, at least for the reasons above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Tarvin 5,145,377 in view of Guten 2011/0196720.
Regarding claim 38, Tarvin teaches the following claimed limitations: a janitorial system for training and guiding a user in recommended use of janitorial products (col.3, lines 58-68 and col.4, lines 1-11: e.g., a system for teaching a user regarding a plurality of cleaning agents that are used to clean different surfaces; so that, the user would know the proper agent to be used to clean a particular surface), the janitorial system comprising: a plurality of cleaning products each contained within one of a plurality of product containers; a label affixed to an exterior surface of each of the plurality of product containers, each label including graphical information (FIG 1 to FIG 3; col.2, lines 5-9; col.3, lines 28-30: e.g., a plurality of containers in the form of bottles, each bottle containing a specific cleaning agent; and wherein a label, which includes printed information regarding the cleaning agent and its application, is affixed to the exterior surface of each of the bottles).
Tarvin does not expressly describe that the graphical information above is “a graphical instructional table has a plurality of visually aligned rows and columns with each of the plurality of visually aligned rows including an alpha-numerical representation of a numbered step of the step-by-step order of use of the cleaning product contained within the product container in a first column, an icon assigned to correspond to a represented activity of the numbered step in a second column, and an icon description including written indicia or indicium describing the represented activity corresponding to the numbered step in a third column”; however, the above is directed to nonfunctional descriptive matter, since the printed matter (the textual/graphical information printed on the label) has no new/unobvious functional relationship with the substrate (e.g., the container on which the label is affixed). Accordingly, such nonfunctional descriptive matter does not patentably distinguish any of the current claims from the prior art.
Moreover, Tarvin already teaches that the implementation already involves incorporating relevant information on each label/card—such as, written information about the cleaning product and its application (col.2, lines 5-9), a graphical illustration that depicts the place or surfaces to be cleaned using the cleaning product contained in the bottle (col.3, lines 28-30).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tarvin’s system; for example, by adding further textual and/or pictorial information on each label—such as, one or more tables with one or more rows and/or columns, wherein each rows/columns includes text, symbols and/or icons that represent one or more step-by-step procedures regarding a task(s) to be performed; so that each label displays detailed information regarding: the characteristics of the cleaning agent; the proper procedure for using and/or applying the cleaning agent, etc., and wherein such information is further provided using one or more languages that the user easily comprehends, so that the chance of misusing the product is minimized.
Although Tarvin also contemplates the use of videos to provide training materials regarding the cleaning products (col.3, lines 31-42), does not describe “a customer portal for accessing training materials via a website for each of the cleaning products, the training materials including training videos for each of the cleaning products that sequentially walks a viewer through the numbered step-by-step order of use of the cleaning product contained within the product container”.
Note that part of the limitation above, namely the part that specifies the content of the video, “[video] that sequentially walks a viewer through the numbered step-by-step order of use of the cleaning product contained within the product container”, is also directed to nonfunctional descriptive matter; and thus, the above does not patentably distinguishes the claim from the prior art (see the reason discussed above regarding nonfunctional descriptive matter).
Moreover, Guten discloses a system that provides, via a website, training to users; such as, training related to proper manner of sanitizing, including effective utilization of chemical dispensers of liquid sanitizers, soaps, etc. ([0027]; [0030] and [0035] lines 32-36).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Tarvin in view of Guten; for example, by providing commercially available conventional devices (e.g. a PDA or a mobile phone, etc.); and wherein each user accesses—using such conventional device—a website that provides further training materials; such as, one or more videos and/or animations regarding the type of cleaning agents to be used and/or one or more steps that must be followed when cleaning using each cleaning agents, etc., so that each user would have a further opportunity to expand his/her knowledge regarding the cleaning agents.
Regarding each of claims 39-43, Tarvin in view of Guten teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Each of claims 39-43 is directed merely to the content of the information printed on the label (i.e., “wherein each of the labels further include a product description for the cleaning product contained within the product container” per claim 39, “wherein the product description is provided in at least two different languages” per claim 40, “wherein the product description is in a font that is the largest font on the label” per claim 41, “wherein each of the icons comprises a drawing that conveys the represented activity to be taken or not to be taken for each of the numbered steps” per claim 42, and “wherein the icon description corresponding to each of the steps is provided in at least two different languages”, per claim 43).
However, here also such limitation(s) directed to the content of the printed matter is nonfunctional descriptive matter since there is no new/unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate; and consequently, none of claims 39-43 is reciting a limitation that patentably distinguishes the claimed system over the prior art.
In addition, given the teaching of Travin regarding the use of a label with printed matter (e.g., a label with printed textual and/or graphical information), each of claims 39-43 is also obvious over Tarvin for the same obviousness findings discussed per claim 38 (e.g., see the obviousness analysis above regarding claim 38 since it also applies to each of claims 39-43).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s argument directed to the Office’s obviousness findings (section §103) appears to be very generic. Applicant asserts, “when correctly interpreted as structural limitations entitled to patentable weight, the present . . . 103 rejections become moot” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant fails to identify the alleged “structural limitations”, which supposedly make the current claims nonobvious over the prior art. Nevertheless, the analysis presented above (section §103) already provides detailed findings regarding why each of the current claims is obvious over the prior art. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 filled 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights