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 .
Restrictions
The response to the restriction and election of species requirement mailed 9/19/25 has been considered. After further consideration that restriction and election of species requirement is withdrawn. Accordingly, all of claims 1-20 are hereby rejoined and will be examined herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0011, on line 7, “applicator 104” should be “actuator 104”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flores et al. (US 2010/0226706, as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter Flores).
In regard to claim 1, the Flores reference discloses a cleaning device comprising:
a body 42 containing a cleaning fluid (within ampoules 50 and 52, see paragraph 0035, lines 7-9);
an application member 44 in selective fluid communication with the body via a fluid path; and
a first selectively permeable element 45, a portion of applicator 44 (or a porous member located elsewhere in the body, see paragraphs 0025, 0026), provided along the fluid path,
wherein the first selectively permeable element is configured to selectively interact with one or more selected components of the cleaning fluid sufficient to remove the one or more selected components from the cleaning fluid as the cleaning fluid travels along the fluid path (i.e., element 45 will remove shards of glass from the cleaning fluid; see paragraph 0044 and the porous member will remove unwanted chemicals from the cleaning fluid; see paragraph 0012 and EXAMPLE 1 starting at paragraph 0049); and
wherein selective interaction between the first selectively permeable element and the one or more selected components comprises at least a physical interaction.
In regard to claim 3, the cleaning fluid comprises chlorhexidine gluconate (see paragraph 0004, line 7) and the one or more selected components comprises 4-chloroaniline (see paragraph 0012, lines 1-6; 4-chloroaniline and para-chloroaniline being the same compound).
In regard to claim 4, the selective interaction between the first selectively permeable element and the one or more selected components comprises a chemical interaction (i.e., removing the 4-chloroaniline from the chlorhexidine gluconate requires a chemical interaction).
In regard to claim 6, the first selectively permeable element comprises a first selectively permeable porous material (see paragraph 0012, lines 1-3 and paragraph 0044).
In regard to claim 8, the first selectively permeable porous member comprises one or more organic functional groups (Lewis acid being considered an organic functional group, see paragraph 0012, lines 8-9).
In regard to claim 16, the first selectively permeable element is considered to be a pledget impregnated with the first selectively permeable porous material.
In regard to claim 17, the first selectively permeable element is a pledget formed from the first selectively permeable porous material.
In regard to claim 19, the application member is considered to be impregnated with the first selectively permeable element wherein the first selectively permeable element comprises the first selectively permeable porous material.
In regard to claim 20, the Flores reference discloses a method of cleaning a surface comprising proving a cleaning device structured as claimed (as discussed above), applying cleaning fluid to a surface via the application member removing the selected component as claimed.
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 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flores.
In regard to claim 2, although the Flores reference does not specifically disclose the cleaning fluid is an organic solution, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Flores device can be used to apply any suitable and know cleaning solution, including an organic solution, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the applicant has not indicated the particular type of cleaning solution is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Flores reference does not limit the type of cleaning solution which may be dispensed from the device.
In regard to claim 7, although the Flores reference does not disclose the specifically claimed porosity of the permeable porous material, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the porosity of the porous material can be adjusted to any suitable value, including that claimed, depending on the needs of the user since it has been held discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-14 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The May reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of another applicator incorporating a filter for the fluid being dispensed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
3/12/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754