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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 4-6 and 21 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.
Claim 2 recites “at least one absorbent applicator”. It is unclear if this is referring back to the previously claimed “applicator within the cleaning kit” set forth in claim 1 or different applicator(s).
Claims 4-6 are directly or indirectly dependent on a rejected claims, making the scope of the claims unclear. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 21 recites that a portion of said solute distributed within said at least one absorbent applicator. However, claim 2 recites that the at least one absorbent applicator is separated from the non-liquid solute. Since these limitations appear to contradict one another, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 15, 19, 20, 24, 25, 30, 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkshire (US 2019/0023477) and in view of Bonnell et al (US 8038000 B2).
As for claim 1, Berkshire discloses a cleaning kit (a cleaning kit; Abstract), said kit comprising: a) a first liquid-tight container (a first container 20; figure 2; paragraph [0052]); and b) a second liquid-tight container including a solvent adapted to be received within said first container (a second container 30 having a liquid solvent, the second container 30 placed within the first container 20; figure 2; paragraphs [0047], [0049] and [0052]); wherein said second container is adapted to be openable while it is located in said first container to release said solvent from said second container into said first container (second container 30 is openable while within the first container 20 by asserting pressure on the first container 20, where the second container 30 ruptures to release the liquid solvent into the first chamber to mix with contents of the first chamber 20; figure 2; paragraph [0047]).
As for claim 2, further including at least one absorbent applicator in said first container (the first container 20 may contain absorbent cleaning applicators 40; figure 2; paragraph [0052]).
Berkshire fails to disclose a non-liquid solute in the first container, wherein said solute and said solvent are combined and the non-liquid solute dissolved into the solvent to form a cleaning liquid that is thereafter absorbed by an applicator within the cleaning kit; (re. claim 2) the applicator separated from the solute and solvent until after the cleaning liquid is formed.
However, Bonnell teaches a non-liquid solute 15 in the first container (Col. 5, lines 1-8 sets forth that compartments can be within each other or all compartments within a larger compartment; therefore, solute 15 may be at least indirectly within larger compartment which would equate to the first compartment); wherein said solute and said solvent are combined and the non-liquid solute dissolved into the solvent to form a cleaning liquid that is thereafter absorbed by an applicator within the cleaning kit (figure 2; Col. 2, lines 50-60) (re. claim 2) the applicator separated from the solute and solvent until after the cleaning liquid is formed (figure 2; Col. 2, lines 50-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Berkshire by providing a non-liquid solute in the first container, wherein said solute and said solvent are combined and the non-liquid solute dissolved into the solvent to form a cleaning liquid that is thereafter absorbed by an applicator within the cleaning kit (re. claim 2) the applicator separated from the solute and solvent until after the cleaning liquid is formed, as taught by Bonnell, for the purpose of providing a cleaning solution for more effective cleaning.
As per claim 4, wherein said applicator is a wiper for use in clean rooms requiring the use of wipers producing very small quantities of contaminants in use (the cleaning applicators 40 may be clean room wipers; paragraph [0052]).
As for claim 5, wherein said applicator includes a plurality of said wipers forming a stack (the cleaning applicators 40 may be a stack of wipes; paragraph [0052]).
As for claim 6, wherein said applicator is made from materials selected from the group consisting of knitted fabrics, woven fabrics, non-woven fabrics, foams, meshes, sponges and combinations thereof (the cleaning applicators 40 may be constructed of knitted fabrics, woven fabrics, non-woven-fabrics, foams, meshes, sponges; figure 2; paragraph [0052]).
As for claim 7, wherein said first liquid-tight container is a pouch having an opening for receiving said second liquid-tight container (the first container 20 is a pouch with an opening to receive the second container 30; figure 2; paragraph [0053]).
As for claim 8, wherein said pouch is a fold pouch formed from a single sheet of material having the edges joined together to form sides and said opening (the pouch is formed from a single sheet of folded material with edges joined to form sides and an opening; figure 2; paragraph [0053]).
As for claim 10, wherein the opening of said pouch is sealable across said opening after receiving said second liquid-tight container (the opening 22 of the pouch is closed using seal 23; figures 2, 5D; paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
As for claim 11, wherein said pouch is re-sealable after opening said first container during use (the opening 22 of the pouch may be re-sealed after opening; figures 2, 5D; paragraph {0054]).
As for claim 12, wherein said pouch is a re-sealable peel and seal pouch (the pouch is re-sealable with a peel and seal flap; figure 5D; paragraph [0054]).
As for claim 15, wherein said pouch includes a resealable pressure zipper adapted to re-seal said first container after opening (the pouch may be re-sealed with a pressure zipper to seal the first container 20; figure 2; paragraph [0026}).
As for claim 19, wherein said plastic film is a thermoplastic film (the pouch may be made of a thermoplastic film; paragraph [0053)).
As for claim 24, Berkshire discloses a cleaning kit (a cleaning kit; Abstract), said kit comprising: a) a first liquid-tight container (a first container 20; figure 2; paragraph [0052)); b) a second liquid-tight container including a solvent adapted to be received within said first container and to be ruptured by the application of pressure to said container by a user (a second container 30 having a liquid solvent, the second container 30 placed within the first container 20 and designed to be ruptured by a user place pressure on the second container 30; figure 2; paragraphs [0047], [0049] and [0052]), said container including i) a sealable liquid-tight pouch (the second container 30 is a liquid-tight pouch; figures 1-2; paragraph [0047]); and ii) a frangible seal along at least a portion of an outer edge of said pouch (the second container 30 may have at least one frangible seal on an edge of the pouch; figure 1-2; paragraph [0047]), wherein said frangible seal is broken by the application of pressure to said second container by a user greater than about 30 inches of water when tested according to ASTM Test F1140-07 (2007) (the frangible seal is broken when application of pressure to the second container 30 Is greater than 30 inches of water when tested according to ASTM Test F1140-07 (2007); paragraph [0029]), wherein said second container is adapted to be openable while it is located in said first container to release said solvent from said second container into said first container (second container 30 is openable while within the first container 20 by asserting pressure on the first container 20, where the second container 30 ruptures to release the liquid solvent into the first chamber to mix with contents of the first chamber 20; figure 2; paragraph [0047]).
Berkshire fails to disclose solid solute in the first container.
However, Bonnell teaches a solid solute 15 in the first container (Col. 5, lines 1-8 sets forth that compartments can be within each other or all compartments within a larger compartment; therefore, solute 15 may be at least indirectly within larger compartment which would equate to the first compartment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Berkshire by providing a solid solute in the first container, as taught by Bonnell, for the purpose of providing a cleaning solution for more effective cleaning.
As for claim 25, further including a baffle extending at least partially across said pouch adapted to reduce accidental rupture caused by handling during shipping, wherein said baffle is selected from the group consisting of a partial weld line, a plurality of spaced apart dashed weld lines, a plurality of scattered weld lines, a single weld dot, a plurality of spaced apart weld dots, a single knurled seam, a plurality of knurled seams, a plurality of intersecting weld lines, and combinations thereof (a baffle extending across the pouch to reduce accidental rupture wherein the baffle may be a partial weld line; figure 2; paragraph [0050]).
As for claim 30, wherein said pouch is a pouch formed by sealing at least pair of opposing edges of sheets of material and at least a portion of the sealed edge of said pouch is a frangible seal (the pouch is formed from two sheets of material having a frangible seal; figure 2; paragraph [0018]).
As for claim 33, wherein said baffle is adapted to provide an effective volume after filling with a liquid of between about 30% and about 80% and the strength of said frangible seal is between about 30 inches of water and about 80 inches of water when tested according to ASTM test F1140-07 (2007) (the baffle provides an effective volume after filling with liquid between 30% and 80% and the strength of the frangible seal is between 30 inches of water and 80 inches of water when tested according to ASTM test F1140-07 (2007); paragraph [0020]).
As for claim 36, wherein said baffle is adapted to provide an effective volume after filling with a liquid of about 60% and the strength of said frangible seal is about 55 inches of water when tested according to ASTM test F1140-07 (2007) (the baffle provides an effective volume after filling with liquid is 80% and the strength of the frangible seal is 55 inches of water when tested according to ASTM test F1140-07 (2007); paragraph [0023)).
Regarding claim 20, Berkshire is further silent regarding said second liquid-tight container including a solvent adapted to be received within said first container is positioned between said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container and said solute.
Bonnell further teaches said second liquid-tight container including a solvent 13 adapted to be received within said first container is positioned between said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container and said solute (Col. 4, lines 50-60 teaches that the solvent compartment may be above or below the solute; Col. 5, lines 1-8 teaches that one compartment may be within another compartment; this sets forth various embodiments that would separate parts as claimed; for example the second container above the first container would make it such that the first container is between the second container and the applicator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Berkshire by providing said second liquid-tight container including a solvent adapted to be received within said first container is positioned between said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container and said solute, as taught by Bonnell for the purpose of having the parts mix in a desired order.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkshire (US 2019/0023477), in view of Bonnell et al (US 8038000 B2) and further in view of Ophardt (US 20210017474 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Berkshire/Bonnell discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Berkshire/Bonnell is silent regarding said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container further includes a portion of said solute distributed within said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container.
Ophardt teaches said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container further includes a portion of said solute distributed within said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container (paragraph 0134 and 0135: dry powdered form).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Berkshire/Bonnell by providing said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container further includes a portion of said solute distributed within said at least one absorbent applicator in said first container, as taught by Ophardt, for the purpose of ensuring the applicator gets a desired cleaning solution, allowing it to be used by dipping in water if desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bonnell et al (US 8038000 B2) which teaches the new limitation regarding a solid, non-liquid solute.
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 ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2180. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights