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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 16, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 16 – 27 are pending. Claims 1 – 15 and 28 – 30 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claim set is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite a reservoir/pouch and then in some instances recited the pouch/reservoir. Claim limitations need to be consistent throughout. Further examples are washing/cleaning applicator means and sponge/applicator means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16 – 28 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the reservoir or pouch is flexible or collapsible as the sole means of dispensing the agent/material from the reservoir/pouch” in lines 14 – 15. The limitation, however, does not find support in the specification. The specification explicitly teaches “it is possible in some embodiments that, additionally or alternatively, a control button is provided to release or help release said agent”. Applicant is advised to show support for “sole means” or to cancel the limitation as it constitutes new matter.
Claims 17 – 27 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 16.
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.
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.
Claims 16 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearman (U. S. Patent No. 1,217,054) in view of Anderson (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0072961 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Pearson teaches a closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), in use, secured by way of a hand grip portion (6; Fig. 2) to a removable sponge or washing/cleaning applicator means (B; Fig. 2), said reservoir/ pouch (A) being exposed above the hand grip portion (6) for squeezing by hand and having an exposed or external inlet (4) for receiving a cleansing or washing or treatment agent or material and at least one outlet nozzle or valve (valve, 8) on a bottom wall of the pouch/reservoir (A) through which said agent/material be dispensed onto the sponge/applicator means (lines 43 – 65), said inlet (4) being spaced or remote from the at least one outlet nozzle or valve (8; Fig. 2), wherein the reservoir/pouch (A) is secured to the hand grip portion (6) having a hand grip skirt (20) projecting outwardly from the reservoir/pouch (A), which surrounds and holds or secures the sponge/applicator means (B) inserted upwardly in a downwardly open recess or well-formed in the hand grip portion (lines 43 – 65) with the bottom wall of the pouch/reservoir (A), said recess or well (where plate, 13 is inserted; Fig. 2) matching dimensions of the sponge/applicator means (B) and having upper and side walling for tightly receiving, gripping, encapsulating and retaining the sponge or washing/cleaning applicator means while covering the at least one outlet nozzle or valve (Fig. 2), and in which the reservoir or pouch (A) is flexible or collapsible on squeezing by hand (Fig. 2), and, wherein, in use, the hand grip portion is squeezable with the reservoir pouch to dispense the cleaning or washing or treatment agent/material from the reservoir/pouch (lines 43 – 65) from said at least one outlet nozzle or valve into the recess or well and spread out through said sponge/applicator means (lines 43 – 65).
Pearson does not explicitly teach the reservoir or pouch is flexible or collapsible as the sole means of dispensing the agent/material from the reservoir/pouch.
Anderson, however, teaches the reservoir or pouch (14) is flexible or collapsible as the sole means of dispensing the agent/material from the reservoir/pouch (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reservoir/pouch of Pearman to further the reservoir or pouch is flexible or collapsible as the sole means of dispensing the agent/material from the reservoir/pouch, as taught by Anderson, to provide a simple and each to manufacture cleaning device.
Regarding Claim 17, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein the sponge/applicator means (B) is removably securable in the hand grip portion (A; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein the recess/well (where pate, 13 is inserted; Fig. 2) is located on an underside of the hand grip portion (A; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein the inlet (4) is located on an upper part of the reservoir/pouch (A; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein said at least one outlet nozzle or valve (8) is on a lower part of the reservoir/pouch (A) adjacent the sponge/applicator means, in use (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 21, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein the reservoir/pouch (A) is bonded or moulded to the hand grip portion (6; the components are molded in one piece; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 22, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein the reservoir/pouch (A) is manufactured as an integral one part unit or as a two part assembly (Fig. 1) (separate reservoir/pouch and hand grip parts) said reservoir/pouch, being replaceable on the hand grip portion (A; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein the sponge/applicator means (B) is removable from the hand grip portion (A) to allow replacement when worn out or dirty or is permanently bonded thereto (lines 43 – 65).
Regarding Claim 24, Pearson, as modified, teaches the reservoir/pouch as claimed in claim 16 as discussed above.
Pearman does not explicitly teach the hand grip portion is made from silicone or other plastics/elastomeric materials.
Anderson, however, teaches the reservoir or pouch (Fig. 1) wherein the hand grip portion is made from silicone or other plastics/elastomeric materials (Abstract – squeezable container).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reservoir/pouch of Pearman to further include the hand grip portion is made from silicone or other plastics/elastomeric materials, as taught by Anderson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 25, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein, in use, the reservoir/pouch (A) being connected to an upper surface of a sponge/applicator means (B; Fig. 1) and, preferably, further characterized in that in the reservoir/pouch is bonded to said upper surface (the limitation is being examined as optional, as thus not required).
Regarding Claim 26, Pearson, as modified, teaches the closed reservoir or pouch (A; Fig. 2), wherein- the reservoir/pouch -is refillable with washing/cleansing/treatment agent or material (lines 43 – 65).
Regarding Claim 27, Pearson, as modified, teaches the reservoir/pouch as claimed in claim 16 as discussed above.
Pearman does not explicitly teach the reservoir or pouch wherein it is of a substantial size (30% to 100% the volume of the sponge/applicator means) and/or spans (30% to 100%) substantially an upper surface of the sponge/applicator means.
Anderson, however, teaches the reservoir or pouch (Fig. 1) wherein it is of a substantial size (30% to 100% the volume of the sponge/applicator means) (Fig. 1) and/or spans (30% to 100%) substantially an upper surface of the sponge/applicator means (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reservoir/pouch of Pearman to further include the reservoir or pouch wherein it is of a substantial size (30% to 100% the volume of the sponge/applicator means) and/or spans (30% to 100%) substantially an upper surface of the sponge/applicator means, as taught by Anderson, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 with respect to rejection to claims 16 – 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and they are persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn; however, after further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Pearman.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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 at 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723