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 .
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112
1. 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 14-20 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, claim 14 and independent claim 17 require that the handle each be long enough to be used to clean a toilet without forcing the cleaning person to have his or hand too close to the toilet or toilet water while cleaning and is slightly bowed to facilitate its use. However, due to varying heights of different people and absence of a standard toilet size, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain what would constitute “long enough” to satisfy the length of the handle to ensure any user adequate length while cleaning since such terms are relative and inconclusive.
Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected for their dependency on claims 14 and 17, respectively.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1- rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (2023/0286113) to Schofield.
Regarding independent claim 1, Schofield discloses a brush head (110) made of multiple layers of biodegradable fabric disks (114) attached to and radiating outwardly from their attachment to a thin bio- degradable handle (104) (See paragraph [0053]-[0055], claim 18 and FIG. 1).
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (2017/0298607) to Cooper.
Regarding independent claim 1, Cooper discloses a brush head (30) made of multiple layers of biodegradable fabric disks (40, 40’, 40’’) attached to and radiating outwardly from their attachment to a thin bio-degradable handle (20) (See paragraph [0015] and [0025]-[0029]; See FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Cooper discloses fabric disks (40, 40’, 40’’) being made of biodegradable cellulose fibers (See paragraph [0032]).
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
3. 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 3-8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (2017/0298607) to Cooper in view of Canadian Patent Publication (2,881,574) to Brenner.
Regarding claim 3, Cooper is silent regarding that biodegradable cellulose fibers are viscos fibers. However, Brenner teaches a cleaning implement (10) having a handle (12). Brenner teaches that the device can be used for cleaning toilets (See paragraph [0015] of Brenner). Brenner teaches that the cleaning implement (10) includes viscos fibers, which are antibacterial effective (See paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Cooper with Brenner to include viscos fibers in order prevent bacterial accumulation.
Regarding claim 4, Cooper as modified with Brenner teaches claim 4. In particular, Brenner teaches that said "viscose" fibers comprise bamboo wood pulp (See paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Cooper with Brenner to include viscos fibers in order prevent bacterial accumulation.
Regarding claim 5, Cooper as modified with Brenner is silent regarding each fabric discs (40, 40’, 40’’) has a thickness of about .006 to .012 inches. However, in the specification, this 0.006 inch range is not provided with criticality, so absent criticality it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination Cooper as modified with Brenner to include the thickness of the discs (40, 40’, 40’’) to be between .006 to .012 inches as such modification would have been obvious to optimize the invention to fit a particular manufacturing purpose.
Regarding claim 6, Cooper as modified with Brenner is silent which each fabric discs has a thickness of about .07-.10. However, in the specification, this 0.03 range is not provided with criticality, so absent criticality it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination Cooper as modified with Brenner to include the thickness of the discs (40, 40’, 40’’) to be between .07- .10 as such modification would have been obvious to optimize the invention to fit a particular manufacturing purpose.
Regarding claim 7, Cooper as modified with Brenner is silent regarding biodegradable fabric disks are of two different diameters; upper fabric disks about 4 1/3 inches in diameter and lower fabric discs about 3 inches in diameter. However, the specification is not provided with criticality for this specific measurement, absent criticality for this particular size it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination Cooper with Brenner to include the upper disc (40) about 4 1/3 inches diameter and lower fabric discs about 3 inches in diameter for the lower discs (40’) since such modification would have been obvious to try in order to optimize the invention for a particular manufacturing purpose.
Regarding claim 8, Cooper as modified with Brenner teaches that the biodegradable fabric discs (40, 40’) has a central slot (See FIG. 2) dimensioned to receive the width of said biodegradable handle (20) there through.
Regarding claim 14, Cooper is silent regarding that biodegradable handle is made from cellulose material but teaches that the handle (20) is long enough to be used to clean a toilet without forcing the cleaning person to have his or her hand too close to the toilet or toilet water while cleaning and is slightly bowed to facilitate its use. However, However, Brenner teaches a cleaning implement (10) having a handle (12). Brenner teaches that the device can be used for cleaning toilets (See paragraph [0015] of Brenner). Brenner teaches that the (12) is made from a cellulose material that is polyolefin material (See paragraph [0043] of Brenner). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Cooper to include a handle from cellulose material to provide elasticity.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Cooper and Brenner are silent regarding that the handle (20) is about inch to about 3/8 inch thick and about 2 to about 3/4 inch wide. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cooper and Brenner to include the handle (20) to be about 3/8 inches thick and 2 to about ¾ inches wide since such modification would have been obvious to try in order to optimize the invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (2017/0298607) to Cooper in view of Great Britain Patent Publication (651,454) to Adams.
Regarding independent claim 17, Cooper teaches a brush head (30) made of multiple layers of biodegradable fabric disks (40, 40’, 40’’) attached to and radiating outwardly from their attachment to a thin bio-degradable handle (20) (See paragraph [0015] and [0025]-[0029]; See FIG. 1).
In particular, Adams teaches a pad (10) for cleaning basins are the like. Adams teaches that the pad (10) includes discs (110) having rounded edges and a plurality of blossoming slots (114) extending radially inwardly from the perimeter of the disk in order to increase the cleaning action of the head. Adams teaches that the blossoming slots (114) enhances the cleaning effect (See page 2 lines 2-25 of Adams). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Cooper to include blossoming slots (114) as taught in Adams in order to enhance the cleaning effect. Moreover, the combination of Cooper and Adams teaches that the blossoming slots (114) help the brush head to obtain a blossom appearance and create more “petals” to increase the cleaning action of the brush head (30) with that the biodegradable handle (20) being short enough to enhance storability and being long enough to be used to clean a toilet without forcing the cleaning person to have his or her hand too close to the toilet or water while cleaning (note that the intended use portions are capable of being performed with the handle (20) of Cooper for cleaning the toilet).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Cooper and Adams teaches that there are a first plurality (40) of said fabric disks attached to said handle (20) in position as an upper brush portion (See FIG. 1 of Cooper), a second plurality of said fabric disks (40’) attached to said handle position (20) as a lower brush handle; said first plurality of fabric disks being slotted (See FIG. 2 of Cooper) and said second plurality of fabric disks being un-slotted (before the assembly of the second fabric discs (40’)).
Claims 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (2017/0298607) to Cooper in view of Canadian Patent Publication (2,881,574) to Brenner and further in view of Great Britain Patent Publication (651,454) to Adams.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cooper and Brenner is silent regarding at least some of the biodegradable fabric disks has a plurality of blossoming slots extending radially inwardly from the perimeter of said disk to help the brush head obtain a blossom appearance and create more "petals" to increase the cleaning action of the brush head. In particular, Adams teaches a pad (10) for cleaning basins are the like. Adams teaches that the pad (10) includes discs (110) having rounded edges and a plurality of blossoming slots (114) extending radially inwardly from the perimeter of the disk in order to increase the cleaning action of the head. Adams teaches that the blossoming slots (114) enhances the cleaning effect (See page 2 lines 2-25 of Adams). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cooper and Brenner to include blossoming slots (114) as taught in Adams in order to enhance the cleaning effect.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cooper and Brenner with Adams teaches that the cellulose fabric disks (40, 40’, 40’’) are subjected to a bunching operation in which said cellulose disks "are crumpled so as to form a roundish "blossom" serving as a brush head on said biodegradable handle (20) (See FIG. 1 of Cooper).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cooper and Brenner with Adams teaches there are a first plurality of said fabric disks attached to said handle in position as an upper brush portion (See FIG. 1 of Cooper), a second plurality of said fabric disks (40’) attached to said handle position (20) as a lower brush handle; said first plurality of fabric disks being slotted (See FIG. 2 of Cooper) and said second plurality of fabric disks being un-slotted (before the assembly of the second fabric discs (40’)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cooper and Brenner with Adams teaches claim 13. In particular, Adams teaches at least six radial blossoming slots (14) (See FIG. 3 of Adams) are spaced at equal distances around the perimeter of each of said first plurality of fabric disks projecting radially inwardly toward the center of said fabric disk but is silent regarding about 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cooper and Brenner with Adams to include the six radial blossoming slots (14) project radially inwardly toward the center of the disc (40) at about 3/8 inches since such modification would have been obvious to try in order to optimize the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Cooper and Adams is silent regarding which said fabric disks are made of biodegradable cellulose fibers. However, However, Brenner teaches a cleaning implement (10) having a handle (12). Brenner teaches that the device can be used for cleaning toilets (See paragraph [0015] of Brenner). Brenner teaches that the (12) is made from a cellulose material that is polyolefin material (See paragraph [0043] of Brenner). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Cooper to include discs from cellulose material to provide elasticity.
Moreover, the combination of Cooper and Adams with Brenner is silent regarding fabric discs has a thickness of about .006 to .012 inches; said fabric disks being made of biodegradable cellulose fibers; said biodegradable handle being made from biodegradable cellulose material and being about inch to about 3/8 inch thick and about 2 to about 3/4 inch wide. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cooper and Brenner to include the handle (20) to be about 3/8 inches thick and 2 to about ¾ inches wide since such modification would have been obvious to try in order to optimize the invention.
Claims 9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (2017/0298607) to Cooper in view of Canadian Patent Publication (2,881,574) to Brenner and further in view of Great Britain Patent Publication (651,454) to Adams and further in view U.S. Patent (2023/0286113) to Schofield.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cooper and Adams with Brenner is silent regarding each of said biodegradable fabric discs has a small hole on each side of said central slot; said handle having two spaced pins extending laterally through the handle towards the end thereof positioned to sandwich said cellulose fabric disks between them and hold them firmly in place, allowing them to spread and extend outwardly into the shape of a ball. However, Schofield teaches cleaning tool (102) with discs (110). Scholefield teaches brush head retention pins (302) extend through spaced holes in said biodegradable handle (104) near the top thereof and hold a plurality of cellulose disks (40, 40’) in place on said handle (20) (See paragraph [0054] and FIG. 3B of Schofield). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Cooper, Adams and Brenner with Schofield to include detachable discs (110) from the handle (104) in order to provide effective replacement.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Cooper and Adams with Brenner is silent regarding pins in the handle. However, Schofield teaches cleaning tool (102) with discs (110). Scholefield teaches brush head retention pins (302) extend through spaced holes in said biodegradable handle (104) near the top thereof and hold a plurality of cellulose disks (40, 40’) in place on said handle (20) (See paragraph [0054] and FIG. 3B of Schofield). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Cooper, Adams and Brenner with Schofield to include detachable discs (110) from the handle (104) in order to provide effective replacement.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Cooper and Adams with Brenner is silent regarding pins in the handle. However, Schofield teaches cleaning tool (102) with discs (110). Scholefield teaches brush head retention pins (302) extend through spaced holes in said biodegradable handle (104) near the top thereof and hold a plurality of cellulose disks (40, 40’) in place on said handle (20) (See paragraph [0054] and FIG. 3B of Schofield). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Cooper, Adams and Brenner with Schofield to include detachable discs (110) from the handle (104) in order to provide effective replacement.
Conclusion
4. 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 DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723