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 .
Objections to the Drawings
1. The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The notation indicating FIGS. 6-7 appear small and blur with the actual drawings. The notation indicating which figure is being depicted should appear below the drawing not merge with the drawing or numerals indicating elements being depicted in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objections to the Specification
2. A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The specification submitted on August 21, 2025 does not include underlined text or brackets for deleted text.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple periods in a paragraph. The claim has multiple periods and should contain one period at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112
4. 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "the rubber tool" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "the finger slots" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "the raised cleaning rubber nubs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected since claims the rubber nubs that were previously mentioned in claim 1. It is not clear whether this claim is mentioning additional nubs or more nubs.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 1-6 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.
In particular, independent claim 1 has the limitation “…to be used in conjunction with disposable glass wipes wrapper around the bottom side of the rubber tool…” in claim 3, which is not clear whether the glass wipes is intended to be apart of the claimed invention or intended to be used with the cleaning implement. For purposes of examination it will be interpreted as being configured to be used with glass wipes.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
5. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0199167) to Mason in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0059737) to Husain.
Regarding independent claim 1, Mason teaches of a rubber ergonomically designed clam shell shape (20) that can be comfortably held and used by either your right or left hand, to be used in conjunction with disposable glass wipes wrapped around the bottom side of the rubber tool (See claim 4) (capable of being used with glass wipes), that contains numerous rubber nubs (not shown), and held onto by the palm and thumb of the hand that is holding onto the tool and the four fingers, that fit into the finger slots (10, 12, 14, 16, 18) (See paragraph [0023], claims 1-4; and FIG. 4 of Mason). However, Mason is silent regarding numerous rubber nubs on the bottom. Husain teaches a glove for cleaning and removing contaminants. Husain teaches the glove (100) that the glove (100) has rubberized nubs (160, 170) on the bottom (See paragraphs [0004]-[0014] of Husain). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mason to include rubberized nubs (160, 170) on the bottom of glove (20) of Mason to remove contaminants from the surface of the cleaning object.
Regarding claim 2, Mason as modified with Husain teaches that the cleaning implement is made from rubber (See claim 4 and paragraph [0023] of Mason). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mason to include rubberized nubs (160, 170) on the bottom of glove (20) of Mason to remove contaminants from the surface of the cleaning object.
Regarding claim 3, Mason as modified with Husain teaches the cleaning implement has four finger slots (10, 12, 14, 16, 18) on the front of it that can be utilized by either hand. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mason to include rubberized nubs (160, 170) on the bottom of glove (20) of Mason to remove contaminants from the surface of the cleaning object.
Regarding claim 4, Mason as modified with Husain teaches in the cleaning implement has a section on the bottom side that contains raised rubber nubs that provide friction to help remove the debris on the windshield. As mentioned above, Husain teaches the glove (100) that the glove (100) has rubberized nubs (160, 170) on the bottom (See paragraphs [0004]-[0014] of Husain). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mason to include rubberized nubs (160, 170) on the bottom of glove (20) of Mason to remove contaminants from the surface of the cleaning object.
Remarks
5. Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. 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.
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723