DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 31, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 31, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 - 7, 10 – 11, 13 – 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20030135181 A1) in view of Russell et al (US 20180169281 A1).
In re claims 1, 10, and 11, Chen et al discloses a cleaning article (pad, Fig. 1: 20) comprising:
a filler (stack, Fig. 1: 22); and
a wrapping (two – sided cover, Fig. 2: 46) completely surrounding the filler completely surrounding as joined at seam, 54, stack, 22, see Fig. 2),
wherein at least one of the filler and the wrapping are composed of a sustainable material (suitable paper making fibers can include recycled fibers, [0019]); and
wherein the filler is a non-woven (stacked plies can attach together in any suitable manner, for instance binder fibers in between layers, see [0005])
wherein the filler has an absorption rate of at least about 10 times the dry weight of the filler (fibers present about 10 dry weight percent or greater, see [0137]) (claim 10)
and wherein the filler has an absorption rate of at least about 20 times the dry weight of the filler (fibers present about 20 – 100 dry weight percent, see [0137]) (claim 11).
Chen et al. discloses stacked plies, 22 can attach together in any suitable manner, for instance binder fibers in between layers, see [0005]]. However, Chen et al. is silent about the process of vertical lapping. Russell et al teaches a liquid or gel delivery devices having a vertically lapped non-woven material, see [0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Ouellette et al with the teachings vertically lapped non-woven as taught by Russell et al. because it provides devices such as wipes or pads to store and discharge liquids and/or gels to surfaces of objects to be cleaned, wiped, and/or disinfected (Russell et al.: [0021]).
In re claim 2, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
wherein the sustainable material is at least one of biodegradable, partially bio-based, compostable, recyclable, and at least partially made of recycled material (Chen et al: suitable paper making fibers can include recycled fibers, [0019]).
In re claim 3, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
wherein the wrapping is at least one of a netting, nonwoven, woven cloth, knit cloth, microfiber, perforated film, or a combination thereof (Chen et al: cover material are non-woven material such as the layer can be made from, for instance, a meltblown web, a spunbond web, a bonded carded web, a paper web, or a laminate containing any of the above webs, see [0090]).
In re claim 4, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
wherein the filler is a fibrous filler, a non-woven filler, and a foam (Chen et al: stacked plies can attach together in any suitable manner, for instance binder fibers in between layers, see [0005]).
In re claim 6, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
wherein the filler comprises fibers having a denier of between about 2 and about 1000 (Russell et al: vertically lapped nonwoven material has a weight, at a target thickness of 9.5mm, within the range of 200 to 900 gm-2, see [0018]).
In re claim 7, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
wherein the cleaning article is used for household cleaning applications (Chen et al: used for cleaning various surfaces such as dishes, walls, other household objects, see [0073]).
In re claim 13, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1.
Chen et al/Russell et al teaches that the cleaning article stack consists of solids with an average density of 1.6 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc), see Chen et al: [0062], but is silent to the filler has a density of about 0.03 g/m3 or less. In other words, Chen et al/Russell et al fails to explicitly disclose that the filler has a density of about 0.03 g/m3 or less. The density of the filler is recognized as a result-effective variable, wherein a density is disclosed as desirable and wherein a density of the filler is known in the art to allow for the amount of liquid absorbed due to the filler’s firmness/softness, and its overall weight. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the filler has a density, was disclosed in the prior art by Chen et al/Russell et al, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the density of the filler disclosed by Chen et al/Russell et al having an average density of 1.6 grams per cubic centimeter. The motivation for doing so would be to provide improvement in the amount of liquid absorbed by the cleaning article (see MPEP 2144.04).
In re claim 14, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 13.
Chen et al/Russell et al teaches that the cleaning article stack consists of solids with an average density of 1.6 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc), see Chen et al: [0062], but is silent to the filler has a density of about 0.025 g/m3 or less. In other words, Chen et al/Russell et al fails to explicitly disclose the filler has a density of about 0.025 g/m3 or less. The density of the filler is recognized as a result-effective variable, wherein a density is disclosed as desirable and wherein a density of the filler is known in the art to allow for the amount of liquid absorbed due to the filler’s firmness/softness, and its overall weight. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the filler has a density, was disclosed in the prior art by Chen et al/Russell et al, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the density of the filler disclosed by Chen et al/Russell et al having an average density of 1.6 grams per cubic centimeter. The motivation for doing so would be to provide improvement in the amount of liquid absorbed by the cleaning article (see MPEP 2144.04).
In re claim 17, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
wherein both the filler and the wrapping are at least partially composed of a sustainable material (Chen et al: cover can comprise of textile material or commercially available material, see [0080] and suitable paper making fibers can include recycled fibers, [0019]).
Claim(s) 8 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20030135181 A1) in view of Russell et al (US 20180169281 A1) and in further view of Heyer et al (US 5025596 A).
In re claim 8, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
Chen et al/Russell et al does not teach,
wherein the cleaning article cleans at least about 0.1 food soil panels in 5,550 cycles.
However, Heyer et al teaches a hand scouring pad, wherein the cleaning article cleans at least about 0.1 food soil panels in 5,550 cycles (examples of various fibers from Example I – IV, that provides at least > 1000 cycles see Table I).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Chen et al/Russell et al with the teachings of the cleaning article cleans at least about 0.1 food soil panels in 5,550 cycles as taught by Heyer et al. because it provides for an efficient cleaning wipe for removing food and debris (Heyer: Col 7: Lines 23 – 27).
In re claim 9, Chen et al as modified teaches the cleaning article of claim 8,
wherein the cleaning article cleans at least about 1 food soil panels in 5,550 cycles (Heyer et al: examples of various fibers from Example I – IV, that provides at least > 1000 cycles see Table I).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20030135181 A1) in view of Russell et al (US 20180169281 A1) and in further view of Endle et al (US 20170051442 A1).
In re claim 12, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1.
Chen et al/Russell et al does not teach,
wherein the cleaning article has a Schiefer scratch rating of 3.5 or less.
However, Endle et al teaches a scouring article, wherein there are listed examples and specifically a comparative example that have a Schiefer scratch rating of 3.5 or less (Table includes scouring articles of specifically a comparative example having a Schiefer Cut Test of 2.5, see [0075]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Chen et al/Russell et al with the teachings of the cleaning article has a Schiefer scratch rating of 3.5 or less as taught by Endle et al. because it allows for the ability of removing of material from an article with minimal to no scratching.
Claim(s) 15 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20030135181 A1) in view of Russell et al (US 20180169281 A1) and in further view of Olson (US 20050241095 A1).
In re claim 15, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 1,
Chen et al/Russell teaches compression of the filler but is silent about,
wherein the filler has a compression of about 9 Kgf or less.
However, Olson teaches an applicator pad, wherein the filler has a compression of about 9 Kgf or less (average push force of the fabric is less than 4.5 newtons, see [0024]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Chen et al/Russell et al with the teachings of the filler has a compression of about 9 Kgf or less as taught by Olson because the fibers will be constructed of resilient material that reduce drag on the fabric surface during use (Olson: [0024]).
In re claim 16, Chen et al/Russell et al teaches the cleaning article of claim 15,
wherein the filler has a compression of about 5 Kgf or less (Olson: average push force of the fabric is less than 4.5 newtons, see [0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed October 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered and are not persuasive, therefore the rejection has been maintained.
In regards to USC 103 rejection of previously presented claim 1, applicant’s argument that Chen et al (US 20030135181 A1) and Russell et al (US 20180169281 A1) does not individually or in combination disclose, suggest or teach each and every element of claim 1, that recites a cleaning article including a filler and wrapping completely surrounding the filler, wherein at least the filler and the wrapping composed of a sustainable material, wherein the filler is vertically lapped non-woven, specifically”. Also, applicant is referring to the specifics of the specification of the “vertical lapping process”. In addition, applicant argues that references, Chen et al having cleaning articles being one of a sponge-like pad used for cleaning made from textured paper webs and the other Russell having cleaning articles that is vertically lapped used for cleaning and delivery and thus there is no motivation to combine. However, the office maintains the rejection as the art both reference cleaning articles and it is known that cleaning articles are capable of absorbing and/or releasing/dispensing liquid and it is known in the art that a cleaning article can perform both tasks, as given in both Chen et al (pad) and Russell et al, various forms of delivery devices such as, pads, wipes, and etc, see [0006] and [0105]; both porous articles that can both absorb (clean) and dispense. Therefore, in regards to there not being motivation to combine a function of cleaning efficiency/absorption and controlled dispensing; as well as the purposes of the sponge-like device and the delivery device teaching away from each other as applicant is arguing is respectfully disagreed with by the office.
The references, Chen et al and Russell et al "does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed," therefore there is no teaching away. Also, "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments."; see MPEP 2123 and 2141.02 V. In addition, while the Russell et al dispenses cleaning liquid, it also infers that the vertically lapped non-woven material stores (thus absorbs) the liquid, see [0025] – [0027]. There are many examples of products that have vertically lapped non-woven material that have the motivation to provide both functions of absorbing and dispensing liquids. Examples, of these products are absorbent pads/sheets like paper towels that can both absorb liquid or potentially squeeze out/dispense liquid; wicking fabrics; and as in the instant application and references, sponges.
In addition applicant is arguing intended use of the porous structure, both Chen et al (pad) and Russell et al (variety of forms) has the claimed structure of a cleaning article, See, Russell et al, [0006] and [0105] for exampled of delivery devices that includes pads, wipes, and etc. therefore "it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)."
It is recommended by the office to modify or amend the claim limitation to defining the cleaning article from supportive information from applicant's disclosure that differentiates based on structure of the cleaning article.
Therefore, claim 1 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 2 – 4 and 6 - 17 are not allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on (571) 272-4475. 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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723