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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 10-13 are currently pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, US 10,040,226 in view of Ikeno et al., JP 2019147244 A (see also English translation) and in further view of Sevilla, US 6,062,968.
Regarding claim 1, Benson discloses the claimed invention including a cleaning sponge roller comprising a cylindrical sponge body (256, Figure 2; also 656, 756, 856, Figures 6-8B; column 13 lines 30-39) that is formed of a porous material having pores (pores of material described in column 28 lines 43-64) and having elasticity in a wet state (column 27 line 63 to column 28 line 2, column 28 lines 46-48); and a shaft-shaped core (at 290, 672, 772, 872) that is inserted through an inner diameter portion of the sponge body (Figures 2, 6-8B) and fixedly supports an inner circumferential surface of the sponge body (Figures 2, 6-8B), wherein the core is formed of a porous sintered compact having pores (column 24 lines 47-55). The cleaning sponge roller is intended for use in the fabrication of semiconductor wafers in a wet environment (column 2 lines 13-30, column 3 line 13 to column 4 line 43) and one material used is polyvinyl acetal sponge (PVA, see column 27 line 63 to column 28 line 11). Regarding claim 3, the sintered compact has a tubular shape (see Figures 2, 6-8B).
Benson fails to specific that the pores of the porous material are continuous pores and that the core is formed with a material having continuous pores. Benson also fails to disclose that the sintered compact has an average pore diameter of 5 μm to 800 μm and a porosity of 30% to 50%.
Ikeno et al. teach porous buffing materials used to treat semiconductors (see Background Art in English translation), specifically the sponge body (1 or 6) is formed of a porous material having continuous pores (polyvinyl acetal sponge having continuous pores, see English translation, claims) and that the portion of the buffing material that is sintered also has continuous pores (see English translation), as continuous pores are more preferable in order to suppress heat storage within the porous body (see English translation).
Sevilla teaches a cleaning sponge comprising a sponge body formed of a porous material and includes a core (Abstract), the core is formed of a porous sintered compact having continuous pores (column 2 lines 63-67), and the sintered compact has an average pore diameter of 5 μm to 800 μm and a porosity of 30% to 50% (column 5 lines 7-17), this pore diameter and porosity is found to have flexibility and durability in use (column 5 lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pores of the sponge body and sintered compact core of Benson so that they are continuous pores, as taught by Ikeno et al., so that during use the pores prevent heat from being built up and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore diameter and porosity of the continuous sintered compact of Benson and Ikeno et al. so that the sintered compact has an average pore diameter of 5 μm to 800 μm and a porosity of 30% to 50%, as taught by Sevilla et al., so that the porosity contributes to providing a sponge body that it is flexible and durable in use.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, US 10,040,226, Ikeno et al., JP 2019147244 A (see also English translation), and Sevilla, US 6,062,968.
Benson, Ikeno et al., and Sevilla disclose all elements previously mentioned above, however fail to disclose that the sintered compact of the core is an organic sintered compact. Regarding claim 6, the sintered compact has a tubular shape (see Benson, Figures 2, 6-8B). The applicant’s disclosure in paragraph [0015] discusses that for “…an organic sintered compact (resin sintered compact or sintered compact plastic)…that there is no concern about influence of metal elution on cleaning unlike metal sintered compacts…” The sintered compact discussed in Benson, Ikeno et al., and Sevilla while not described as organic or inorganic, is a resin or plastic and not metal (Benson, resin, column 24 lines 47-55; Ikeno et al. polyvinyl acetal sponge, see English translation; Sevilla, thermoplastic or urethane resin, column 3 lines 30-32, 37-38). It is also noted that there is a circumstance described in MPEP 2144.04 (VII) related to purifying an old product, and “purer forms of a product may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.” From the applicant’s disclosure relating to an organic sintered compact and in light of MPEP 2144.04 (VII) about the provenance of a material, the examiner has not found that there is any structural or functional difference between an organic sintered compact and the sintered compact disclosed by Benson, Ikeno et al, and Sevilla.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plastic sintered compact of Benson, Ikeno et al., and Sevilla so that it is organic or from an organic source, as there would not be a structural or functional difference resulting in a different product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention of claims 5 and 10-13, specifically that the sponge body is fixed to the core by entering the continuous pores of the sintered compact and being integrated with the sintered compact. Benson teaches that the sponge body is fixed to the core and is integrated with the sintered compact (the sponge body is fixed to the core and is integrated with the sintered compact of the core in how the sponge body 256 is cast into the core via channels 230, 250, and 280 in the embodiment of Figure 2), however the sponge body is not fixed to the core by entering the continuous pores. The applicant describes this in more detail in the specification at paragraph [0018].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg