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 .
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, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-157319 Shimizu in view of JPH 09-234167 Bando et al.
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a cleaning wipe (paragraph 0001), the cleaning wipe comprising:
embossment blocks, in each of which a plurality of convex embossments that are embossments having convexity are gathered, in a first surface (top) of the cleaning wipe (figure 4a),
wherein the plurality of embossment blocks are continuously arranged and form embossment block rows from a first side to a second side opposite to the first side (figure 5b, where the rows are not limited to being perpendicular or parallel to the sides),
non-embossment parts Sa where the embossments are not arranged are included between other ones of the embossment blocks which are adjacent (figure 4a),
the plurality of embossment block rows are continuously arranged from a third side perpendicularly intersecting the first side to a fourth side opposite to the third side (figure 5b),
the non-embossment parts are provided at a proportion of 10-35% with respect to an area of the cleaning wet wipe S (paragraph 0034), and
the convex embossments are arranged such that at least one convex embossment is present on a straight line extended perpendicularly from an arbitrary point on the third side to the fourth side (figure 5b).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 10-35% reads on the claimed range of 25-50%.
Shimizu does not teach that the wipe is wet. Bando teaches a cleaning wipe impregnated with a cleaning solution (paragraph 0011). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the wet function of Bando in the product of Shimizu because wet tissues may be desired in certain situations, particularly when a cleaning or medicinal (chemical) solution is required (paragraph 0009).
Please note, claim 1 includes product by process language (“that is obtained by impregnating a base paper sheet with a chemical agent and is used with the cleaning wet wipe attached to a cleaning tool having a head”). The discussion above tends to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113. In this case, the process of Shimizu appears to form the same product as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving an unobvious difference between the products.
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu teaches concave embossments that are embossments having convexity in a second surface of the cleaning wipe (figure 4a),
wherein the embossment blocks are combinations of the plurality of convex embossments and the concave embossments (figure 4a), and
the concave embossments are arranged such that at least one concave embossment is present on a line extended from an arbitrary point on the third side to the fourth side (figure 4a).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu teaches the cleaning wipe, but does not teach hydrophilic and hydrophobic layers of fibers. Bando teaches a cleaning wipe that is used as wet (abstract), wherein the base paper sheet includes hydrophobic fiber layers 11,12 that form surfaces of the sheet, and a hydrophilic fiber layer 13 that is sandwiched between the hydrophobic fiber layers (paragraph 0006), and
mutual fibers are entangled in boundary regions between the hydrophobic fiber layers and the hydrophilic fiber layer (paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the fibers layers and entanglement of Bando in the product of Shimizu because the fiber layers allow for easy separation of the wipes and containment of the cleaning solution until desired (paragraph 0011), and entanglement maintains the form of the nonwoven fabric (paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu teaches that an angle formed between a long axis direction of the embossments and a first direction that perpendicularly intersects the first side is 45° (figure 5b), and the embossment blocks have diamond shapes (figure 5b).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu does not explicitly teach oval shapes. Shimizu discloses that the shapes of the embossments may be any one of many suitable shapes (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the shape of the embossments from triangles or other polygonal shapes to ovals with narrowed centers since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part B). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the shape of the embossments does not impart patentability to the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781