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 § 112(b)
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed “average secondary particle size” is indefinite as the term “secondary” implies a “primary” that is not claimed. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “average
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geen (US-2,839,482) in view of Pabst (US-2,561,816) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Geen (US-2,839,482) teaches polishing composition comprising abrasive grains (“10.0-30.0 parts by weight of an abrasive of a size remaining in suspension in the composition”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56], and a hydrophobic dispersing medium (“1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56],
wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of normal paraffin hydrocarbons, isoparaffin hydrocarbons, naphthenic hydrocarbons, and terpene hydrocarbons (“1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56] (“A surface polish consisting essentially of 3.0-5.0 parts by weight of fluid polydialkylsiloxane, 2.0-4.0 parts by weight of mineral waxes, 1.0-2.5 parts by weight of vegetable waxes, 60.0-120.0 parts by weight of a volatile paraffinic hydrocarbon solvent, 1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin, 1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a metallic soap insoluble in water, and 10.0-30.0 parts by weight of an abrasive of a size remaining in suspension in the composition.”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56].
As to having a “flash point of 30 or more and 100°C or less,” Pabst (US-2,561,816) it is known that a lower flash point introduces undesirable hazards into the manufacturing processes and into the use of the finished product (“On the other hand, solvents of materially lower boiling range, while offering certain advantages such as less offensive odor and a finished 'preparation of increased body, have not ,been found satisfactory because of the considerably lower flash point which introduces undesirable hazards into the manufacturing processes and into the use of the finished product.”) [Pabst; col. 1, lines 31-38] (substances with a flash point below 37.8 degrees Celsius, or 100 degrees Fahrenheit, are considered “flammable,” while those above that value are classified as “combustable.”) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882) makes obvious a flash point deemed suitable that is about 40 degrees Celsius (“with a flash point of about 40.degree. C. The most preferred solvent is Stoddard solvent. The preferred concentration of the solvent is from about 50% to about 90% by weight of the total formulation.”) [Wachowiak; col. 3, lines 12-15].
As for the water, Geen teaches that water can be added to help disperse the solution (“Thle remainder of the solvent and the water is then added slowly while the agitation is continued, such agitation being sufficient to disperse all of the abrasive uniformly throughout the solution.”) [Geen; col. 6, lines 30-34] and gives examples of similar finishing compositions using water (‘1.0-5.0 parts by weight of water.”) [Geen; col. 15, lines 22-23].
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium is contained at 15 mass% or more and 40 mass% or less relative to the total mass of the polishing composition (“10.0-30.0 parts by weight of an abrasive of a size remaining in suspension in the composition”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56].
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a surfactant.
However, Wachowiak (US-6,156,108) teaches a surfactant (“Surfactants, such as emulsifiers, are characterized by their hydrophile-lipophile balance (HLB) number. The functionality of the surfactant can be determined by the balance between its hydrophilic and lipophilic proportions. Once a general requirement for stable emulsification has been met, the surfactant or surfactant blend HLB number or range is set. The HLB range for a water-in-oil emulsion is generally 3-8. The minor phase of the emulsion is water; the major phase is oil, specifically an aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent and waxes. The emulsifier in the most preferred variation of the polish formulations has an HLB number of 5. An HLB number in the 3-8 range can be obtained using a single emulsifier or a combination of emulsifiers to create a stable emulsion. The presence of two or more emulsifiers can be advantageous in increasing the stability of the emulsion.”) [Wachowiak; col. 4, lines 7-21]. Since Wachowiak is pertinent to polishing compositions, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a surfactant in the polishing composition of Geen in order to help increase the stability of the emulsion used for polishing, as taught by Wachowiak [Wachowiak; col. 4, lines 7-21].
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the abrasive grain is aluminum oxide.
However, Wachowiak (US-6,156,108) teaches wherein an abrasive grain is aluminum oxide (“Abrasives such as chalks, silicates, silicas rottenstone, pumice, aluminum oxides, tripoli, calcium carbonates, diatomaceous earth and silicon carbides can be added so that the formulation functions as a delivery vehicle for the abrasives. Abrasives are selected based on intended effect, i.e., smoothing a rough surface or cleaning a surface, and on the nature of the surface to which the formulation is applied. For example, certain abrasives, such as silicon carbide, are suitable for use on some metals and others, such as alumina, are suitable for use on some stone.”) [Wachowiak; col. 5, lines 4-13]. Since Wachowiak teaches aluminum oxide is an obvious alternative to the abrasive of Geen (“The abrasive is a diatomaceous silica”) [Geen; col. 5, line 71], it therefore would’ve been an obvious alternative to use aluminum oxide for the abrasive of Geen as taught by Wachowiak in order to effect an intended abrasive effect to the surface of a workpiece [Wachowiak; col. 5, lines 4-13].
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses a polishing method, comprising polishing an object to be polished using the polishing composition according to claim 1 (“Another object of the present invention is to provide a polish for coated surfaces, which does not require special attention to uniformity of application and which requires only a minimum of rubbing to obtain the desired appearance without marks "of application" or smearing during rubbing.”) [Geen; col. 1, lines 24-29].
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Geen discloses the polishing method according to claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the object to be polished comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of resin materials, alloy materials, and glass materials.
However, Geen teaches that polish is meant to be used on “painted, lacquered, varnished, or enameled surfaces and particularly to a polishing for such surfaces” [Geen; col. 1, lines 12-14]. Official notice is taken that metal, metal alloys, and resins are well known materials that are painted, such as with automobiles and automotive workpieces, as well as resin automobile bodies, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to polish at least one selected from the group consisting of resin materials, alloy materials, and glass materials as these are well-known workpieces that are polished.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, wherein an average particle size of the abrasive grains is 0.05 micrometers or more and 10 micrometers or less (“The abrasive is a diatomaceous silica which may be calcined. The individual particles are porous and have a cellular structure and range in size from one to four microns.”) [Geen; col. 5, lines 71-74].
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive grains are contained at 5 mass% or more and 30 mass% or less relative to the total mass of the polishing composition (“10.0-30.0 parts by weight of an abrasive of a size remaining in suspension in the composition”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56].
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1. As to “wherein the polishing composition is used for finish polishing of a resin material having a pencil hardness of F or lower,” this is considered an intended use statement regarding what the “polishing composition” is used for, particularly the “polishing composition according to claim 1.” It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Whether Applicant uses the polishing composition for one application versus another application does not change the structure of the polishing composition that is used for either application. Since the prior art discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, then Geen is considered to anticipate the claimed structure of the polishing composition according to the claim.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geen (US-2,839,482) in view of Pabst (US-2,561,816) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882), and further in view of Johnson (US-2005/0277718) and Hasinovic (US-20080127856).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium has a vapor pressure at 20°C of 0.004 kPa or more and 2 kPa or less.
However, Johnson (US-2005/0277718) teaches wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium has a vapor pressure at 20°C of 0.004 kPa (about 0.03 Torr) or more and 2 kPa (about 15 Torr) or less (“Useful hydrocarbon oils includes those straight, or branched chain, saturated or unsaturated aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon compounds having a vapor pressure less than 1 torr, preferably less than 0.5 torr an most preferably less than 0.1 torr, and are liquids at 20.degree. C.”) [Johnson; paragraph 0043]. Hasinovic (US-20080127856) teaches that vapor pressure is an important criteria (“The evaporation rate is an important criteria in selection of the organic solvent.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0031] (“The hydrocarbon solvent should have an appropriate evaporation rate in order to provide adequate contact time to dissolve old polish on the surface to be treated, but not so slow as to result in smearing and loss of gloss of the deposited film.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0024] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the vapor pressure of the hydrophobic dispersing medium of Geen to be within the claimed range, as taught by Johnson, in order to dissolve old polish on the surface to be treated, but not so slow so as to result in smearing and loss of gloss [Hasinovic; paragraph 0024].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to a claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium comprises at least two selected from the group consisting of normal paraffin hydrocarbons, isoparaffin hydrocarbons, naphthenic hydrocarbons, and terpene hydrocarbons (“60.0-120.0 parts by weight of a volatile paraffinic hydrocarbon solvent, 1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geen (US-2,839,482) in view of Johnson (US-2005/0277718) and Hasinovic (US-20080127856).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Geen (US-2,839,482) teaches polishing composition comprising abrasive grains (“10.0-30.0 parts by weight of an abrasive of a size remaining in suspension in the composition”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56], and a hydrophobic dispersing medium (“1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56],
wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of normal paraffin hydrocarbons, isoparaffin hydrocarbons, naphthenic hydrocarbons, and terpene hydrocarbons (“1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56], but fails to disclose wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium has a vapor pressure at 20°C of 0.004 kPa or more and 2 kPa or less.
However, Johnson (US-2005/0277718) teaches wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium has a vapor pressure at 20°C of 0.004 kPa (about 0.03 Torr) or more and 2 kPa (about 15 Torr) or less (“Useful hydrocarbon oils includes those straight, or branched chain, saturated or unsaturated aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon compounds having a vapor pressure less than 1 torr, preferably less than 0.5 torr an most preferably less than 0.1 torr, and are liquids at 20.degree. C.”) [Johnson; paragraph 0043]. Hasinovic (US-20080127856) teaches that vapor pressure is an important criteria (“The evaporation rate is an important criteria in selection of the organic solvent.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0031] (“The hydrocarbon solvent should have an appropriate evaporation rate in order to provide adequate contact time to dissolve old polish on the surface to be treated, but not so slow as to result in smearing and loss of gloss of the deposited film.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0024] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the vapor pressure of the hydrophobic dispersing medium of Geen to be within the claimed range, as taught by Johnson, in order to dissolve old polish on the surface to be treated, but not so slow so as to result in smearing and loss of gloss [Hasinovic; paragraph 0024].
As for the water, Geen teaches that water can be added to help disperse the solution (“Thle remainder of the solvent and the water is then added slowly while the agitation is continued, such agitation being sufficient to disperse all of the abrasive uniformly throughout the solution.”) [Geen; col. 6, lines 30-34] and gives examples of similar finishing compositions using water (‘1.0-5.0 parts by weight of water.”) [Geen; col. 15, lines 22-23].
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geen (US-2,839,482) in view of Pabst (US-2,561,816) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882), and further in view of Lee (US-2004/0067860).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Geen, as modified in view of Pabst and Wachowiak, teaches polishing composition according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium has a flash point of 50°C or more and 80°C or less.
However, Lee (US-2004/0067860) teaches having a high flash point such as 45°C or above (“a high flash point, such as for example 45.degree. C. or above”) [Lee; paragraph 0046]. Since it is known that the lower the flash point, the more hazardous a material becomes, particularly where grinding and frictional heat are involved. It therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to raise the flash point to above a suitable value, such as 45°C and above, including the claimed range, in order to reduce the hazard caused by a lower flash point (“On the other hand, solvents of materially lower boiling range, while offering certain advantages such as less offensive odor and a finished 'preparation of increased body, have not ,been found satisfactory because of the considerably lower flash point which introduces undesirable hazards into the manufacturing processes and into the use of the finished product.”) [Pabst; col. 1, lines 31-38].
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium has a flash point of 64°C or more and 74°C or less.
However, Lee (US-2004/0067860) teaches having a high flash point such as 45°C or above (“a high flash point, such as for example 45.degree. C. or above”) [Lee; paragraph 0046]. Since it is known that the lower the flash point, the more hazardous a material becomes, particularly where grinding and frictional heat are involved. It therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to raise the flash point to above a suitable value, such as 45°C and above, including the claimed range, in order to reduce the hazard caused by a lower flash point (“On the other hand, solvents of materially lower boiling range, while offering certain advantages such as less offensive odor and a finished 'preparation of increased body, have not ,been found satisfactory because of the considerably lower flash point which introduces undesirable hazards into the manufacturing processes and into the use of the finished product.”) [Pabst; col. 1, lines 31-38].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geen (US-2,839,482) in view of Pabst (US-2,561,816) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882), and further in view of Okada (WO2016075880A1).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Geen discloses the polishing composition according to claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the aluminum oxide has an alpha-conversion rate of 50% or more.
However, Okada (WO2016075880A1) (“The type of aluminum oxide abrasive grains is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include those made of α-alumina, δ-alumina, θ-alumina, γ-alumina, or κ-alumina. However, in order to polish a crystalline metal compound with higher polishing efficiency, it is preferable that the aluminum oxide abrasive grains contain α-alumina as a main component. Specifically, the alpha conversion rate of alumina in the aluminum oxide abrasive grains is preferably 20% or more, and more preferably 40% or more. The alpha conversion rate of alumina in the aluminum oxide abrasive grains can be obtained from the integrated intensity ratio of (113) plane diffraction lines by X-ray diffraction measurement.”) [Okada Translation; page 3, paragraph 4]. Since Okada teaches that an alpha conversion rate as claimed is desirable for polishing, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an aluminum oxide as claimed in order to achieve a higher polishing efficiency [Okada Translation; page 3, paragraph 4].
Claim(s) 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geen (US-2,839,482) in view of Pabst (US-2,561,816) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882), and further in view of Johnson (US-2005/0277718) and Hasinovic (US-20080127856).
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Geen discloses a method for producing a polishing composition, comprising:
a step of providing a hydrophobic dispersing medium comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of normal paraffin hydrocarbons, isoparaffin hydrocarbons, naphthenic hydrocarbons, and terpene hydrocarbons (“1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56], and has a flash point of 30°C or more and 100°C or less (“A surface polish consisting essentially of 3.0-5.0 parts by weight of fluid polydialkylsiloxane, 2.0-4.0 parts by weight of mineral waxes, 1.0-2.5 parts by weight of vegetable waxes, 60.0-120.0 parts by weight of a volatile paraffinic hydrocarbon solvent, 1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin, 1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a metallic soap insoluble in water, and 10.0-30.0 parts by weight of an abrasive of a size remaining in suspension in the composition.”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56], and a step of mixing abrasive grains (“10.0-30.0 parts by weight of an abrasive of a size remaining in suspension in the composition”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56], and the hydrophobic dispersing medium (“1.0-3.0 parts by weight of a terpene hydrocarbon resin”) [Geen; col. 14, lines 48-56], but fails to disclose having a vapor pressure at 20°C of 0.004 kPa or more and 2 kPa or less, and/or a flash point of 30°C or more and 100°C or less.
As to having a “flash point of 30 or more and 100°C or less,” Pabst (US-2,561,816) it is known that a lower flash point introduces undesirable hazards into the manufacturing processes and into the use of the finished product (“On the other hand, solvents of materially lower boiling range, while offering certain advantages such as less offensive odor and a finished 'preparation of increased body, have not ,been found satisfactory because of the considerably lower flash point which introduces undesirable hazards into the manufacturing processes and into the use of the finished product.”) [Pabst; col. 1, lines 31-38] (substances with a flash point below 37.8 degrees Celsius, or 100 degrees Farhenheit, are considered “flammable,” while those above that value are classified as “combustable.”) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882) makes obvious a flash point deemed suitable that is about 40 degrees Celcius (“with a flash point of about 40.degree. C. The most preferred solvent is Stoddard solvent. The preferred concentration of the solvent is from about 50% to about 90% by weight of the total formulation.”) [Wachowiak; col. 3, lines 12-15].
As to having a vapor pressure at 20°C of 0.004 kPa or more and 2 kPa or less, Johnson (US-2005/0277718) teaches wherein the hydrophobic dispersing medium has a vapor pressure at 20°C of 0.004 kPa (about 0.03 Torr) or more and 2 kPa (about 15 Torr) or less (“Useful hydrocarbon oils includes those straight, or branched chain, saturated or unsaturated aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon compounds having a vapor pressure less than 1 torr, preferably less than 0.5 torr an most preferably less than 0.1 torr, and are liquids at 20.degree. C.”) [Johnson; paragraph 0043]. Hasinovic (US-20080127856) teaches that vapor pressure is an important criteria (“The evaporation rate is an important criteria in selection of the organic solvent.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0031] (“The hydrocarbon solvent should have an appropriate evaporation rate in order to provide adequate contact time to dissolve old polish on the surface to be treated, but not so slow as to result in smearing and loss of gloss of the deposited film.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0024] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the vapor pressure of the hydrophobic dispersing medium of Geen to be within the claimed range, as taught by Johnson, in order to dissolve old polish on the surface to be treated, but not so slow so as to result in smearing and loss of gloss [Hasinovic; paragraph 0024].
As for the water, Geen teaches that water can be added to help disperse the solution (“Thle remainder of the solvent and the water is then added slowly while the agitation is continued, such agitation being sufficient to disperse all of the abrasive uniformly throughout the solution.”) [Geen; col. 6, lines 30-34] and gives examples of similar finishing compositions using water (‘1.0-5.0 parts by weight of water.”) [Geen; col. 15, lines 22-23].
Regarding claim 18 (New), Geen discloses a polishing method, comprising polishing an object to be polished using the polishing composition obtained by the production method of claim 14 (“Another object of the present invention is to provide a polish for coated surfaces, which does not require special attention to uniformity of application and which requires only a minimum of rubbing to obtain the desired appearance without marks "of application" or smearing during rubbing.”) [Geen; col. 1, lines 24-29].
Regarding claim 19 (New), Geen discloses a polishing method, comprising polishing a coated surface, using the polishing composition obtained by production method of claim 14 (“Another object of the present invention is to provide a polish for coated surfaces, which does not require special attention to uniformity of application and which requires only a minimum of rubbing to obtain the desired appearance without marks "of application" or smearing during rubbing.”) [Geen; col. 1, lines 24-29]. Geen fails to disclose a wolf buff and/or sponge buff.
However, Hasinovic (US-2007/0251417) teaches polishing a coated surface with a a sponge buff, using a polishing composition (“The composition is sprayed lightly onto the wet surface and the surface is then wiped with a cloth, sponge, and/or other absorbent material to dry and simultaneously buff the same.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0021]. Since Goff teaches a polishing composition for polishing a coated surface (“Another object of the present invention is to provide a polish for coated surfaces”) [Geen; col. 1, lines 24-25], it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a known applicator for a polishing composition in order to apply it to a surface, such as the “cloth, sponge, and/or other absorbent material” as taught by Hasnovic [Hasinovic; paragraph 0021].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geen (US-2,839,482) in view of Pabst (US-2,561,816) and Wachowiak (US-6,258,882), and further in view of Hasinovic (US-2007/0251417).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Geen discloses a polishing method, but fails to disclose comprising polishing a coated surface with a wool buff and/or a sponge buff, using the polishing composition according to claim 1.
However, Hasinovic (US-2007/0251417) teaches polishing a coated surface with a wool buff and/or a sponge buff, using a polishing composition (“The composition is sprayed lightly onto the wet surface and the surface is then wiped with a cloth, sponge, and/or other absorbent material to dry and simultaneously buff the same.”) [Hasinovic; paragraph 0021]. Since Goff teaches a polishing composition for polishing a coated surface (“Another object of the present invention is to provide a polish for coated surfaces”) [Geen; col. 1, lines 24-25], it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a known applicator for a polishing composition in order to apply it to a surface, such as the “cloth, sponge, and/or other absorbent material” as taught by Hasnovic [Hasinovic; paragraph 0021].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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 Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723