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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0129897; hereafter ‘897) in view of Pedoja (US PG Pub 2013/0004552; hereafter ‘552).
Claim 1: ‘897 is directed towards a method for making an article for hand-washing an object (title, abstract, & ¶s 52-58 & 162), the method comprising:
forming a nonwoven substrate comprising a plurality of fibers including a resin, the nonwoven substrate containing an active cleaning formulation (¶s 17, 53, 55, 120-129, & 164);
forming an abrasive surface on the nonwoven substrate (abstract).
The active cleaning formulation can be in the form of dry powder attached to the fibers and distributed throughout the article (¶ 165; i.e. the active cleaning formulation functions as the abrasive surface as evidenced by applicant’s Specification at ¶ 221).
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
The nonwoven substrate of ‘897 is comprised of cellulose fibers (¶s 19-21) and a resin with a wet strength agent that can be chosen to have different degrees of water-solubility based on design choice (¶s 58 & 121-130).
‘897 does not teach that the nonwoven substrate is water-dispersible upon contact with water having a temperature of 40ºC or lower and is water-soluble upon contact with water having a temperature greater than 40ºC according to Testing Method MSTM-205.
However, ‘552, which is directed towards water-dispersible nonwoven fabric material (title) teaches that it is known in the art to produce nonwoven materials that are dispersible or soluble in water at room temperature (¶ 111) for use as substrates for cleaning wipes (¶s 2 & 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the nonwoven substrate of ‘552 for the nonwoven substrate of ‘897 because it is art recognized alternative nonwoven substrate in the art which would have predictably produced the desired product and also reduced the amount of waste product for disposal when removing the abrasive of ‘897.
Though the combination is silent concerning a degree of water-dispersibility & water-solubility to obtain the desired results or the nonwoven substrate is water-dispersible upon contact with water having a temperature of 40ºC or lower and is water-soluble upon contact with water having a temperature greater than 40ºC according to Testing Method MSTM-205, it does teach that desired results are proportionate to the dispersibility and solubility. Thus, dispersibility & solubility temperatures are a result-effective variable based on results desired and it is obvious to optimize dispersibility & solubility temperatures to obtain the desired results.
"Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Claim 2: The forming a nonwoven substrate comprising a plurality of fibers including a resin and an active cleaning formulation comprises saturating the nonwoven substrate with the active cleaning formulation (¶ 158).
Claim 3: The active cleaning formulation includes a carrier solvent (water or some other cleaning fluid (¶ 158) with the soap or detergent (¶ 164); see also ¶ 165).
Claims 5-6: The abrasive surface is formed by adhering an abrasive material to a first surface of the nonwoven substrate (¶s 13, 131-138, 211).
Claim 7: The abrasive material comprises a plurlaity of particles made of the active cleaning formulation (see ¶ 165 and claim 26).
Claim 8: The forming an abrasive surface on the nonwoven substrate comprises heating a first surface of the substrate to adhere an abrasive material to the first surface (the first surface is melted to melt bond the abrasive to the first surface, ¶ 132).
Claim 10: The nonwoven substrate comprises water soluble resins and the structure is combined with the abrasive layer on the surface of the nonwoven substrate in a wet state with water – i.e. the first surface of the nonwoven substrate is dissolved and the abrasive material is applied to the substrate (see ¶s 17, 53, 55, 120-129, & 164)
Claim 11: The nonwoven substrate has a substantially smooth surface formed (¶ 118).
Claim 12: The substantially smooth surface is formed by drying and calendaring (i.e. heating; ¶ 118).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘897 does not teach “the active cleaning formulation functions as the first abrasive surface” because ‘897 teaches “the abrasive layer is formed primarily of coarse polymeric fibers” and further discloses “the abrasive layer as comprising multifilamentary aggregate fibers”; this argument is not found convincing because claim 1 is a comprising claim and does not recite that “only” the active cleaning formulation functions as the “only” abrasive surface but instead requires it functions as the abrasive surface and ‘897 teaches the active cleaning formulation can be in the form of a dry powder attached to the fibers and throughout the entire structure (see ¶ 165) and as evidenced by applicants own specification, the presence of the dry powder on the outer surface gives rise to the dual function of the active cleaning formulation as a cleaning formulation and an abrasive (see Specification ¶ 221) and therefore it is apparent that the presence of the dry powder on the fibers at the surface will provide the powder as an abrasive surface and provide the dual function as claimed.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘897 does not teach or suggest a nonwoven substrate containing an active cleaning formulation; the Office does not find this argument convincing because ‘897 states that an active cleaning agent can be present in a dry powder form attached to the fibers through out.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘897 is directed to preparing a reusable scrubbing product, wherein the abrasive layer is disposable or refreshable by a user removing it to expose a cleaning abrasive structure underneath whereas the instant claims are directed to methods of making an article for hand-washing an object that is water-dispersible and or water-soluble in its entirety; the Office does not find this argument convincing because a reference is considered for all of its teachings and though teaches various embodiments it also teaches a water-soluble nonwoven substrate with an abrasive active cleaning formulation at the surface as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the instant claims are limited to an article for hand-washing an object, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights