Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/26 has been entered.
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.
In claims 1 and 17, it is not clear what is meant by “melty bicomponent fibers”. How does a melty bicomponent fiber differ from a bicomponent fiber? bicomponent fibers generally have a core with a higher melt temperature than the sheath in order to enable the fibers to act as binder fibers without losing their structure as a fiber. However, it is not clear what is meant by melty bicomponent fiber. Does this mean that the entirety of the fiber, both components, whether side by side or sheath/core are melted? Does a melty bicomponent fiber retain fiber structure at all? 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 Brown et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,513,184 in view of Macedo et al, U.S. Patent No. 2005/0276826.
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. The material is capable of being used in household cleaning applications or cosmetic cleaning applications.
With regard to the claims as amended 12/10/25, Brown teaches that preferably the core fibers or base fibers are not fused or bonded but are entangled to allow for movement of the fibers which produces better dust collecting performance. See col. 6, lines 21-42.
Brown differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the nonwoven is made up of vertically lapped fibers.
However, Macedo teaches that it was known to form 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected from among known and equivalent methods of forming the nonwoven as taught by Macedo to form the core of the structure of Brown.
Brown 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 Brown was modified to include a vertically lapped core as taught by Macedo, it is reasonable to expect that the structure of Brown 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) 7-8, 11-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,513,184 in view of Macedo et al, U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0276826 as set forth above, and further in view of Haq et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,603,069.
Brown in view of Macedo discloses a cleaning material as set forth above.
Brown 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 Brown 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 filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Brown teaches meltblown or spunbonded nonwovens which are different than nonwovens bonded by melty bicomponent fibers. However, Brown also teaches bonded carded webs, which can be not otherwise bonded. Brown clearly teaches entangled fibers rather than bonded fibers as being preferable in order to provide improved dust retention as set forth above. Therefore, Brown clearly teaches unbonded fibers in the core which meets the claims even as amended, since the limitations regarding bicomponent fibers are set forth as an alternative embodiment.
With regard to Bradley, Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the Bradley reference.
With regard to Macedo, Applicant argues that Macedo only teaches meltblown fibers. However, Macedo clearly teaches staple fibers which can be formed into a nonwoven by vertical lapping or carding. See paragraph 0026 .
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
Prosecution Insights