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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 01/06/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claim 1. Claims 2-20 have been cancelled by applicant. Claims 21-22 are newly presented. The previous 112b rejections of claim 1 has been withdrawn due to applicant amendments. The previous 102/103 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant amendments and cancelled claims.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the following claim limitation have been interpreted in view of applicant’s definition in accordance of the specification:
Claim limitation of “the low-density polyethylene comprises a density ranging from approximately 917 to approximately 930 kg/m3” in claim 3 is interpreted to be “the low-density polyethylene preferably comprises a density ranging from approximately (+/- 5%) 917 to approximately (+/- 5%) 930 kg/m3“ as disclosed in the specification, paragraph 0020;
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.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattaneo (EP 2591904) in view of Sojka (US Pub. No. 2007/0147942), as evidence by Plastima (NPL article, found at https://web.archive.org/web/20191215185556/http://www.plastima.lt/en/lcatalog/product/15/polyethylene-(pe)/), and Shinada (JP H11267063).
Regarding claim 1, Cattaneo discloses: a product (Figures 1-4 element 1 and see also paragraph 0032) adapted to cleanse at least a portion of a user's body (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the product being a sponge, a loofah, or a shower glove (See figure 4 and see also paragraph 0076 where the prior art discloses the product having “a cut” that allows the user to put two or three fingers, in other words the wipe of figure 4 implements a kind of “finger glove”, thus being capable of being used as a shower glove.), the product comprising:
- a bio-based material (element 2, see also paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses the plastic material is “a biodegradable polymer”, thus being a bio-based material with the prior art also disclosing a list of examples of the polymers which include “polymer based on cornstarch, potato starch or derivatives from sugar cane”) derived from sugar cane (see paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses the plastic material is “a biodegradable polymer” for example “derivatives from sugar cane”), wherein the bio-based material comprises polyethylene (see paragraph 0057 where the prior art disclose the plastic material (element 2) comprises one or more materials including “polyethylene”).
However, Cattaneo does not explicitly disclose the polyethylene is a low-density polyethylene having a density ranging from approximately 917 to approximately 930 kg/m3, wherein the bio-based material comprises at least 98% by weight bio-based content; and a fixing string attached to the product.
Sojka is also concern in providing a cleaning product (Figure 1 element 10 and see also paragraph 0018) comprising a bio-based material body (element 15 and see also paragraph 0039) and wherein the bio-based material comprises low-density polyethylene (see paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to incorporate the teachings of Sojka to provide wherein the polyethylene is a low-density polyethylene. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a low-density polyethylene would necessarily provide a material that is known in the art to provide excellent flexibility, toughness, and relative transparency.
With respect to the low-density polyethylene having a density ranging from approximately 917 to approximately 930 kg/m3 . The prior art of Cattaneo modified discloses the product having linear low- density polyethylene (see prior art of Sojka paragraph 0020) which is known in the art to have a density of ranging from 910 to approximately 925 kg/m3, as evidence by Plastima, thus having overlapping ranges and having a density value that ranges from approximately 917 to approximately 930 kg/m3.
PNG
media_image1.png
124
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Cattaneo modified appears to be silent wherein the bio-based material comprises at least 98% by weight bio-based content and a fixing string attached to the product.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to provide wherein the bio-based material comprises at least 98% by weight bio-based content, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the product of Cattaneo modified would not operate differently with the claimed weight and would function appropriately having the claimed weight. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, offering other acceptable weights (e.g. 90% and 100% see paragraph 0038) and therefore there is no criticality placed on the weight claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
However, Cattaneo modified appears to be silent comprising a fixing string attached to the product.
Shinada is a product adapted to cleanse (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0001/0006) comprising a body (element 1) and a fixing string (element 6) attached to the product (see figures 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to incorporate the teachings of Shinada to provide a fixing string attached to the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a string on the product would necessarily allow the user to hang the product, thus allowing the user to appropriately store the product.
Regarding claim 21, Cattaneo discloses: a cleansing sponge (Figures 1-4 and see also paragraph 0032) for a user's body (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), consisting of:
- a body (elements 1/2/3/4/5/6/7) formed of a bio-based polyethylene derived from sugar cane (element 2, see also paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses the plastic material is “a biodegradable polymer”, see paragraph 0057 where the prior art disclose the plastic material (element 2) comprises one or more materials including “polyethylene”, and see paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses the plastic material is “a biodegradable polymer” for example “derivatives from sugar cane”).
However, Cattaneo does not explicitly disclose the polyethylene is a low-density polyethylene , wherein the bio-based low-density polyethylene has a density ranging from approximately 917 to approximately 930 kg/m3, wherein the bio-based material comprises at least 98% by weight bio-based content; and a fixing string attached to the product.
Sojka is also concern in providing a cleaning product (Figure 1 element 10 and see also paragraph 0018) comprising a bio-based material body (element 15 and see also paragraph 0039) and wherein the bio-based material comprises low-density polyethylene (see paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to incorporate the teachings of Sojka to provide wherein the polyethylene is a low-density polyethylene. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a low-density polyethylene would necessarily provide a material that is known in the art to provide excellent flexibility, toughness, and relative transparency.
With respect to the bio-based low-density polyethylene has a density ranging from approximately 917 to approximately 930 kg/m3.
. The prior art of Cattaneo modified discloses the product having linear low- density polyethylene (see prior art of Sojka paragraph 0020) which is known in the art to have a density of ranging from 910 to approximately 925 kg/m3, as evidence by Plastima, thus having overlapping ranges and having a density value that ranges from approximately 917 to approximately 930 kg/m3.
PNG
media_image1.png
124
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Cattaneo modified appears to be silent wherein the bio-based material comprises at least 98% by weight bio-based content and a fixing string attached to the product.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to provide wherein the bio-based material comprises at least 98% by weight bio-based content, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the product of Cattaneo modified would not operate differently with the claimed weight and would function appropriately having the claimed weight. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, offering other acceptable weights (e.g. 90% and 100% see paragraph 0038) and therefore there is no criticality placed on the weight claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
However, Cattaneo modified appears to be silent comprising a fixing string attached to the product.
Shinada is a product adapted to cleanse (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0001/0006) comprising a body (element 1) and a fixing string (element 6) attached to the product (see figures 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to incorporate the teachings of Shinada to provide a fixing string attached to the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a string on the product would necessarily allow the user to hang the product, thus allowing the user to appropriately store the product.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattaneo (EP 2591904) in view of Battersby (US Pub. No. 2012/0207887), Chen (US Pub. No. 2020/0048436), and Shinada (JP H11267063).
Regarding claim 23, Cattaneo discloses: a cleansing loofah (Figures 1-4 and see also paragraph 0032) for a user's body (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), consisting of:
- a body (elements 1/2/3/4/5/6/7) formed of a bio-based material derived from starch (element 2, see also paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses the plastic material is “a biodegradable polymer” for example “corn starch” or “potato starch”).
However, Cattaneo does not explicitly disclose the bio-based material derived starch is derived from tapioca starch, wherein the bio-based material comprises a hydrophobic thermoplastic starch and comprises at least 80% by weight bio-based content, and a fixing string attached to the body.
Battersby is also concern in providing a product (see paragraph 0003) that is bio-based material (see paragraph 0014 where the prior art discloses utilizing “biodegradable resins ("bioplastics")) and wherein the bio-based material is derived from tapioca starch (see paragraph 0014 where the prior art discloses that the biodegradable resins are typically derived from renewable raw materials such “as starch (e.g., corn, potato, tapioca, etc.)”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Cattaneo to incorporate the teachings of Battersby to provide wherein the bio-based material is derived from tapioca starch. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the product being derived from tapioca starch would necessarily provide the capability of undergoing biological decomposition in a compost site as part of an available program, such that the resin is not visually distinguishable and breaks down to carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass, at a rate consistent with known compostable materials (e.g., cellulose) and leaves no toxic residue as disclosed by Battersby (see paragraph 0015).
However, Cattaneo modified appears to be silent wherein the bio-based material comprises a hydrophobic thermoplastic starch and comprises at least 80% by weight bio-based content, and a fixing string attached to the body.
Chen is also concern in providing a product that comprises a bio-based material (see paragraph 0011) and wherein the bio-based material comprises a hydrophobic thermoplastic starch (see paragraphs 0014/0044 where the prior art discloses utilizing “hydrophobic thermoplastic starch” in the products).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Cattaneo to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide wherein the bio-based material comprises a hydrophobic thermoplastic starch. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having hydrophobic thermoplastic starch would necessarily provide excellent mechanical properties and processability as disclosed by Chen (see paragraph 0044).
However, Cattaneo modified appears to be silent wherein the bio-based material having hydrophobic thermoplastic starch comprises at least 80% by weight bio-based content, and a fixing string attached to the body.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to provide wherein the bio-based material comprises at least 80% by weight bio-based content, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the product of Cattaneo modified would not operate differently with the claimed weight and would function appropriately having the claimed weight. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem and has not placed any criticality on the claimed density provides any unexpected result (see paragraph 0039).
However, Cattaneo modified appears to be silent comprising a fixing string attached to the product.
Shinada is a product adapted to cleanse (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0001/0006) comprising a body (element 1) and a fixing string (element 6) attached to the product (see figures 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cattaneo to incorporate the teachings of Shinada to provide a fixing string attached to the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a string on the product would necessarily allow the user to hang the product, thus allowing the user to appropriately store the product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 3-5 of the “Remarks”, applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments of claim 1 have been considered and addressed in the rejection above.
On page 6 of the “Remarks”, applicant argues the new independent claims of 21-22, specifically the transitional phrase of “consisting of”. Applicant asserts that claim 21 recites a cleansing sponge consisting of exactly two components: (1) a body formed of bio-based low-density polyethylene derived from sugar cane with the specified density and bio-based content, and (2) a fixing string attached to the body and claim 22 recites a cleansing loofah consisting of exactly two components: (1) a body formed of bio-based material derived from tapioca starch comprising hydrophobic thermoplastic starch at 80% bio-based content, and (2) a fixing string attached to the body. Furthermore, the applicant indicates that the indicating that the prior art of Cattanteo’s includes multiple additional components that fall outside the closed scope of claims 21 and 22, including the cleansing impregnate, the multi-layer structure (Figure 4 ), and the specific fiber arrangements.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the arguments of the transitional phrase of “consisting of”, the phrase only closes the claim to the inclusion of a body and fixing string. The additional limitation of the body being formed of bio-based low-density polyethylene derived from sugar cane with the specified density and bio-based content (claim 21) and the body formed of bio-based material derived from tapioca starch comprising hydrophobic thermoplastic starch at 80% bio-based content (claim 22) do not necessarily excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim since the phrase "consisting of" does not appear in a clause of the body of the claim (i.e. the body consisting of). Lastly, as indicated in the rejection above of claims 21-22, the prior art of Cattaneo discloses the body comprising of elements 1/2/3/4/5/6/7, thus there are no additional components that fall outside the closed scope of claims 21 and 22. Thus, arguments are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723