Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification as originally filed does not provide support for low melting point bicomponent fibers. It provides support for low melting fibers but those are listed as an alternative to bicomponent fibers. See page 3, lines 16-27.
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.
Claims 1, 3-20 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.
The term “low melting point bicomponent fiber” in claims 1 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low melting point bicomponent fibers” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what values would be considered a low melting point. Further, it is not clear whether only one component of the bicomponent fiber should have a low melting point or if both should have a low melting point. The claimed structure is not clear.
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.
Claims 1, 3-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 17/426,687 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claims a cleaning article comprising a filler and a wrapping surrounding the filler.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Macedo et al, U.S. Patent No. 2005/0276827 in view of Dooley et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0335221.
Macedo teaches nonwovens which are suitable for use in cleaning articles from methods including carding/garneting, airlaying, wetlaying, spunbonding, meltblowing, vertical lapping and combinations thereof. See paragraphs 0020, 0026. Macedo teaches that the nonwovens can be bonded by thermal bonding. See paragraph 0026.
Macedo differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose providing a wrapping layer and does not teach incorporating bicomponent fibers to facilitate thermal bonding.
However, Dooley teaches a cleaning product. The product includes an absorbent core and a wrap layer, (which is also sometimes called a liner layer in Dooley). See paragraph 0006. The absorbent core comprises nonwovens which are bonded by a bicomponent fibers. See paragraph 0012. The liner layer can be a nonwoven layer. See paragraph 0008.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed bicomponent fibers to facilitate thermal bonding in the structure of Macedo. It further would have been obvious to have provided a wrapper as taught by Dooley to provide increased absorption, wicking and scrubbing properties to the cleaning product.
Macedo in view of Dooley does not clearly teach the number of food panels cleaned in a number of cycles or the Schiefer scratch rating.
However, once the material of Macedo was modified to include a wrapper as taught by Dooley, it is reasonable to expect that the structure would have the claimed properties, since like materials must have like properties, or, in the alternative to have selected suitable materials for the outer and inner portions which provided the optimum cleaning and scratch properties to the cleaning pad.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macedo in view of Dooley as applied to claims above, and further in view of Brown et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,513,184,
Macedo in view of Dooley does not clearly disclose the denier of the fibers of the filler or the particularly claimed materials which can be sustainable.
However, Brown discloses a cleaning sheet. The cleaning sheet comprises a base layer and an outer layer which covers the base layer. See col. 1, lines 44-50. The base layer can be a layer comprising entangled fibers, (see col. 4, lines 63-67). The cores can be formed from nonwovens such as meltblowns, spunbondeds or bonded carded webs. See col. 5, lines 4-20. The nonwoven can have a basis weight of 30-100 gsm. See col. 7, lines 12-16. The structure can further comprise an outer net or web which corresponds to a scrim or mesh. See col. 7, lines 33-43. The fibers can have a denier of 1-6 denier. See col. 7, lines 44-49. The fibers can be thermoplastic materials, semi synthetic fibers, regenerated cellulose fibers and natural fibers, as well as mixtures thereof. See col. 8, lines 22-31. At least the cellulose and natural fibers would be sustainable fibers. The material is capable of being used in household cleaning applications or cosmetic cleaning applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected materials and amounts as taught by Brown in view of their art recognized suitability for this intended purpose.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macedo et al, U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0276826 in view of Dooley as set forth above, and further in view of Haq et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,603,069.
Macedo in view of Dooley discloses a cleaning material as set forth above.
Macedo in view of Dooley differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose superabsorbent, the amount the superabsorbent can absorb or the claimed density or the claimed compression
However, Haq discloses a cleaning article comprising two outer sheets which are bonded together and which encase a core material. See col. 1, lines 64-68. The core material can be a highly absorbent material, which has an absorbency of at least 5 times its own weight and preferably at least 40 times its own weight in liquid. See col. 2, lines 24-27; col. 3, lines 57-68. The core can have a density of 0.03-0.08g/cc. See col. 4, lines 8-10. The outer layers can be nonwoven fabrics. See col. 3, lines 24-35. The outer sheets at least partially surround the core material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have provided superabsorbents having the absorbency as taught in Haq in order to enable the material of Macedo to absorb many times its weight in liquid. It further would have been obvious to have selected a density as taught by Haq in order to provide a material having a density suitable for use as the core of a cleaning material.
With regard to the claimed compression, it would have been obvious to have selected the degree of compression and resiliency which provided the best cleaning properties.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 8/4/26 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the previous rejections. New rejections are set forth in view of the amended claims.
Applicant's 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
