DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor
DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick (U.S Patent No. 5632756).
Regarding claim 1, Kruglick discloses a cleaning assembly comprising:
a shaft defining a longitudinal axis, the shaft extending from a first end to a second end opposite the first end (page 3, lines 33-45 and fig. 3);
a first cleaning element disposed at the first end of the shaft (the end by reference sign 14, fig. 3) ; and
a second cleaning element disposed at the second end of the shaft (the end by reference sign 4, fig. 3);
wherein the first cleaning element comprises a proximal portion (by reference sign 32, fig. 3) and a distal portion (by reference sign 14, fig. 3) adjacent to the proximal portion;
the proximal portion has a greater cross section in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shaft than the distal portion; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the proximal portion (the shield) is harder than the distal malleable portion.
Regarding claim 2, Kruglick discloses the proximal portion and the distal portion are coaxially arranged (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kruglick discloses the proximal portion, the distal portion, and the shaft are coaxially arranged (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kruglick discloses wherein the proximal portion and the distal portion are joined at an interface surface (by reference sign 34, fig. 3), the interface surface being on a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 5, Kruglick does not expressly discloses the length of the first cleaning element; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform routine experimentation to arrive to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Kruglick discloses wherein at least one of the proximal portion, the distal portion, and the second cleaning element is substantially cylindrical (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Kruglick discloses wherein the distal portion and the second cleaning element are both substantially cylindrical and have substantially equal diameters (by reference 14 and 36 of fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kruglick does not expressly discloses the length of the second cleaning element; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform routine experimentation to arrive to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Kruglick does not expressly discloses the length of the proximal portion; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform routine experimentation to arrive to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Kruglick does not expressly discloses the length of the proximal portion; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform routine experimentation to arrive to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Kruglick does not expressly discloses the length of the distal portion; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform routine experimentation to arrive to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Kruglick does not expressly discloses the overall length of the assembly; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform routine experimentation to arrive to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the distal portion and the proximal portion are formed from different materials to one another (see claim 1 of Kruglick).
Regarding claim 18, Kruglick discloses wherein at least one of the proximal portion, the distal portion, and the second cleaning element is elliptical or ridged (by reference sign 14, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kruglick discloses in a preferred embodiment that the second cleaning element can comprise cotton swab capable of being impregnated with a cleaning fluid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the cleaning element impregnated with a cleaning fluid.
Regarding claim 20, Kruglick discloses wherein the at least the part of at least one of the first and second cleaning elements is absorbent (by reference sign 36, fig. 3 and claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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 PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights