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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 18 are pending.
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 1 – 3, 10 – 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0366294 A1) in view of Bailey et al (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0019072 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Roe teaches a media transport system cleaning card (bonded laminate web, 60), comprising: a first layer (facing sheet, 60) of a substrate (substrate, 63), a second layer (backing sheet, 61) of the substrate (63),; wherein: the base layers are positioned against each other at a plurality of contact areas (at plurality of discreate bonding points, 68), a plurality of pockets (interior regions, 69) within which the base layers do not contact each other are positioned between the base layers so that each pocket forms a raised cleaning element in each of the cleaning layers (Fig. 2), and each of the pockets is bounded by one or more of the contact areas (Fig. 2).
Roe does not explicitly teach the first layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer; wherein the second layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer.
Bailey, however, teaches the first layer has a cleaning sublayer (Paragraph [0062]) and a base sublayer (side attached to substrate); wherein the second layer (Paragraph [0062] – Bailey teaches a substrate provided with thin opposed nonwoven layers on either side of the substrate) has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer (side attached to substrate).
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 card of Roe to further include the first layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer; wherein the second layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer, as taught by Bailey, for providing a frictional gripping region to be effectively gripped by rolls forming part of a machine-reading mechanism to be cleaned.
Regarding Claim 2, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card (bonded laminate web, 60) wherein each pocket is filled with air (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 3, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card (bonded laminate web, 60) wherein each pocket is filled with a fluid (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Independent Claim 10, Roe teaches a method of manufacturing a cleaning card, the method comprising: providing a first layer (facing sheet, 60) of a substrate (substrate, 63); providing a second layer (backing sheet, 61) of the substrate (63); positioning the first base sublayer and the second base sublayer against each other at a plurality of contact areas (at plurality of discreate bonding points, 68) to form: a plurality of raised cleaning elements (Fig. 2), and a plurality of pockets(interior regions, 69) within which the base sublayers do not contact each other (Fig. 2), and which contain a fluid (Paragraph [0019]).
Roe does not explicitly teach the first layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer; wherein the second layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer.
Bailey, however, teaches the first layer has a cleaning sublayer (Paragraph [0062]) and a base sublayer (side attached to substrate); wherein the second layer (Paragraph [0062] – Bailey teaches a substrate provided with thin opposed nonwoven layers on either side of the substrate) has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer (side attached to substrate).
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 card of Roe to further include the first layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer; wherein the second layer has a cleaning sublayer and a base sublayer, as taught by Bailey, for providing a frictional gripping region to be effectively gripped by rolls forming part of a machine-reading mechanism to be cleaned.
Regarding Claim 11, Roe, as modified, teaches the method further comprising, before positioning the first base sublayer (bottom side of 60 adjacent to substrate, 63) and the second base sublayer (61, side adjacent to substrate, 63) against each other (Paragraph [0008]), connecting edges of the first layer and the second layer to each other while leaving a cavity between the first layer and the second layer (Paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 12, Roe, as modified, teaches the method wherein connecting the edges comprises leaving an opening to the cavity (Paragraph [0083]), and the method further comprises: injecting a fluid into the cavity through the opening; and sealing the opening after injecting the fluid into the cavity (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 13, Roe, as modified, teaches the method wherein injecting the fluid into the cavity comprises injecting air into the cavity (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 14, Roe, as modified, teaches the method wherein each of the raised cleaning elements is bounded by one or more of the contact areas (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Roe, as modified, teaches the method wherein positioning the first base sublayer (bottom side of 60 adjacent to substrate, 63) and the second base sublayer (61, side adjacent to substrate, 63) against each other comprises using a die to press the first layer and the second layer of the substrate against each other at the contact areas (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Roe, as modified, teaches the cleaning card and method, of claims 1 and 1o.
Roe does not teach wherein: each base sublayer comprises a first material; each cleaning sublayer comprises a second material; and the first material is different from the second material.
Bailey, however, teaches each base sublayer comprises a first material (Paragraph [0062]); each cleaning sublayer comprises a second material (Paragraph [0062]); and the first material is different from the second material (Paragraph [0062]).
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 card of Roe to further include each base sublayer comprises a first material; each cleaning sublayer comprises a second material; and the first material is different from the second material, as taught by Bailey, for providing a frictional gripping region to be effectively gripped by rolls forming part of a machine-reading mechanism to be cleaned.
Claims 4 – 6 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0366294 A1) in view of Conolly (GB 2501358).
Regarding Claim 4, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card (bonded laminate web, 60) wherein: the first layer further comprises a first impermeable layer attached to the base sublayer of the first layer (Paragraph [0054]).
Roe does not teach the second layer further comprises a second impermeable layer attached to the base sublayer of the second layer.
Conolly, however, teaches the first layer (203) further comprises a first impermeable layer (2031) attached to the base sublayer (2032) of the first layer (Paragraph [0031]) and the second layer (202) further comprises a second impermeable layer (2021) attached to the base sublayer of the second layer (2022; Paragraph [0031]).
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 card of Roe to further include the second layer further comprises a second impermeable layer attached to the base sublayer of the second layer, as taught by Conolly, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 5, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card of claim 4 as discussed above.
Roe does not explicitly teach wherein the first impermeable layer and the second impermeable layer form sidewalls of the plurality of pockets.
Conolly, however, teaches the first impermeable layer (2031) and the second impermeable layer (2021) form sidewalls of the plurality of pockets (201; Fig. 4c).
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 card of Roe to further include wherein the first impermeable layer and the second impermeable layer form sidewalls of the plurality of pockets, as taught by Conolly, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 6, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card of claim 1 as discussed above.
Roe does not explicitly teach wherein each base sublayer is relatively more rigid than each cleaning sublayer.
Conolly, however, teaches each base sublayer (2022 and 2032) is relatively more rigid than each cleaning sublayer (Paragraphs [0034] and [0035]).
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 card of Roe to further include wherein each base sublayer is relatively more rigid than each cleaning sublayer, as taught by Conolly, to provide a supporting structure for the cleaning member.
Regarding Claim 15, Roe, as modified, teaches the method of claim 10 as discussed above.
Roe further teaches the method further comprising, before positioning the first base sublayer and the second base sublayer against each other: providing a first impermeable layer that is attached to the base sublayer of the first layer (Paragraph [0054]).
Roe does not explicitly teach the method further comprising providing a second impermeable layer attached to the base sublayer of the second layer.
Conolly, however, teaches a first layer (203) further comprises a first impermeable layer (2031) attached to the base sublayer (2032) of the first layer (Paragraph [0031]) and the second layer (202) further comprises a second impermeable layer (2021) attached to the base sublayer of the second layer (2022; Paragraph [0031]).
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 card of Roe to further include the method further comprising providing a second impermeable layer attached to the base sublayer of the second layer, as taught by Conolly, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 16, Roe, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed above.
Roe does not explicitly teach the first impermeable layer and the second impermeable layer form sidewalls of the plurality of pockets.
Conolly, however, teaches the first impermeable layer (2031) and the second impermeable layer (2021) form sidewalls of the plurality of pockets (201; Fig. 4c).
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 card of Roe to further include wherein the first impermeable layer and the second impermeable layer form sidewalls of the plurality of pockets, as taught by Conolly, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0366294 A1) in view of Sugita (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0406577 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card of claim 1 as discussed above.
Roe does not explicitly teach wherein the raised cleaning elements are arranged in an array or a honeycomb pattern.
Sugita, however, teaches wherein the raised cleaning elements (23) are arranged in an array or a honeycomb pattern (Fig. 6).
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 card of Roe to further include the raised cleaning elements are arranged in an array or a honeycomb pattern, as taught by Sugita, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0366294 A1) in view of Rice et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0265157 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card of claim 1 as discussed above.
Roe does not explicitly teach wherein each cleaning sublayer comprises an unbroken loop fabric or a flocked material.
Rice, however, teaches wherein each cleaning sublayer comprises an unbroken loop fabric or a flocked material (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 card of Roe to further include the raised cleaning elements are arranged in an array or a honeycomb pattern, as taught by Rice, 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0366294 A1) in view of Shirodkar et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0224463 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Roe, as modified, teaches the media transport system cleaning card of claim 1 as discussed above.
Roe does not explicitly teach each base layer comprises a fibrous aramid or meta-aramid material, a cellulosic material, a flexible polymeric material, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, or polyurethane foam.
Shirodkar, however, teaches each base layer comprises a fibrous aramid or meta-aramid material, a cellulosic material, a flexible polymeric material, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, or polyurethane foam (Paragraph [0243]).
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 card of Roe to further include each base layer comprises a fibrous aramid or meta-aramid material, a cellulosic material, a flexible polymeric material, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, or polyurethane foam, as taught by Shirodkar, 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0366294 A1) in view of Bernas et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0266619 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Roe, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17, as discussed above.
Roe does not teach wherein the die arranges the raised cleaning elements are arranged in an array or a honeycomb pattern.
Bernas, however, teaches the die (Abstract) arranges the raised cleaning elements are arranged in an array or a honeycomb pattern (Paragraph [0002]).
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 card of Roe to further include the die arranges the raised cleaning elements are arranged in an array or a honeycomb pattern, as taught by Bernas, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 12, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Bailey.
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