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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Herzog (DE 202016006680 U1).
Re Claim 1, Herzog discloses a human-wearable towel B, wherein the towel comprising: a. a first side; b. a second side; c. wherein the first side and the second side comprise a material; and d. wherein the towel comprises an opening C that passes through the first side to the second side and wherein the opening is suitable to pass a human hand through said opening; the opening is capable of securing the towel on an arm of an individual; and the towel [is able to be grasped by the hand in proximity to the towel to clean a surface using the hand]. (Fig. 1; abstract; description). Furthermore, note that this claim is a product claim and not a method claim, thus the limitation “is able to be grasped by the hand in proximity to the towel to clean a surface using the hand” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. I See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963).
Re Claim 7, Herzog discloses the material of the first side and material of the second side is suitable for cleaning (Fig. 1; abstract; description). This limitation is intended use.
Re Claim 12, Herzog discloses a method for cleaning, comprising: a. placing the towel of claim 1 on an arm of an individual; b. securing the towel of claim 1 on the arm; c. grasping the second side of the towel with a hand located on the arm; d. passing the first side over an area to be cleaned (Fig. 1; abstract; description; the towel will inherently be cleaning the wearer by picking up sweat, water, dirt etc.); e. releasing the second side; f. freeing the hands to go about other tasks; and g. keeping the towel of claim 1 secured on the arm (Fig. 1; abstract; description).
Claim(s) 1, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Stein (PGPub 20090144924).
Re Claim 1, Stein discloses a human-wearable towel, wherein the towel comprising: a. a first side; b. a second side; c. wherein the first side and the second side comprise a material; and d. wherein the towel comprises an opening that passes through the first side to the second side and wherein the opening is suitable to pass a human hand through said opening; the opening is capable of securing the towel on an arm of an individual; and the towel [is able to be grasped by the hand in proximity to the towel to clean a surface using the hand]. (Fig. 1-2; para. 16-19). Furthermore, note that this claim is a product claim and not a method claim, thus the limitation “is able to be grasped by the hand in proximity to the towel to clean a surface using the hand” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. I See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963).
Re Claim 7, Stein discloses the material of the first side and material of the second side is suitable for cleaning (Fig. 1-2). This limitation is intended use.
Re Claim 8, Stein discloses the second side comprises a design element (Fig. 1-2; para. 16-19).
Re Claim 9, Stein discloses the design elements are comprised of the same material as the device (Fig. 1-2; para. 16-19).
Re Claim 10, Stein discloses the design elements comprise a stitched element (Fig. 1-2; para. 16-19).
Re Claim 11, as best understood, Damian discloses the design element is comprised of a different material than that of the towel (Fig. 1-2; para. 16-19: “opening 20 may contain additional material along the periphery of opening 20 that may provide padding, or a decorative border”).
Re Claim 12, Stein discloses a method for cleaning, comprising: a. placing the towel of claim 1 on an arm of an individual; b. securing the towel of claim 1 on the arm; c. grasping the second side of the towel with a hand located on the arm; d. passing the first side over an area to be cleaned (Fig. 1-2; the towel will inherently be cleaning the wearer by picking up sweat, water, dirt etc.); e. releasing the second side; f. freeing the hands to go about other tasks; and g. keeping the towel of claim 1 secured on the arm (Fig. 1-2; para. 16-19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog in view of Damian (PGPub 2021/0330139).
Re Claim 6, 8-11, Herzog does not disclose the opening is surrounded by an elastic border, the second side comprises a design element, the design elements are comprised of the same material as the towel, the same material is a stitched design element, the design element is comprised of a different material than that of the towel. Damian teaches opening is surrounded by an elastic border (Fig. 1-11; para. 24-35), Damian discloses the second side comprises a design element (Fig. 9-11; para. 38-40). Damian discloses the design elements are comprised of the same material as the towel (Fig. 11; para. 40: sections 52/56 of the towel are folded and stitched which makes design elements). Damian discloses the same material is a stitched design element (Fig. 11; para. 40: sections 52/56 of the towel are folded and stitched which makes design elements). Damian discloses the design element is comprised of a different material than that of the towel (Fig. 9-10; para. 38-39: “marker, paint, adhesive or any other method of demarking the towel material can be used”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize these features, as taught by Damian, in order to provide strength and flexibility for the opening and to accommodate user preferences and to have a unique and fashionable aesthetic.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein in view of Damian.
Re Claim 6, Stein does not disclose the opening is surrounded by an elastic border. Damian teaches opening is surrounded by an elastic border (Fig. 1-11; para. 24-35). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize these features, as taught by Damian, in order to provide strength and flexibility for the opening and to accommodate user preferences and to have a unique and fashionable aesthetic.
Claim(s) 1, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damian in view of Herzog.
Re Claim 1, Damian discloses a human-wearable towel 2, wherein the towel comprising: a. a first side; b. a second side; c. wherein the first side and the second side comprise a material; and d. wherein the towel comprises an opening 3 that passes through the first side to the second side and wherein the opening is suitable to pass a human hand through said opening; the opening is capable of securing the towel on an arm of an individual; and the towel is able to be grasped by the hand in proximity to the towel to clean a surface using the hand (Fig. 1-11; para. 24-30). Damian does not disclose the opening is suitable to pass a human hand through said opening. Damian does disclose the opening is suitable to pass human fingers through said opening (para. 43). Herzog teaches a towel with an opening which is suitable to pass a human hand through said opening (Fig. 1; abstract; description). Additionally, this merely is a change of size to allow a hand to fit through rather than just fingers. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an enlarged opening which is suitable to pass a human hand through said opening, as taught by Herzog, for the purpose of making it possible to carry the towel without using hands/fingers directly and to allow the towel to be carried like a purse or bag for ease of transport and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 6, Damian discloses the opening is surrounded by an elastic border (Fig. 1-11; para. 24-35).
Re Claim 7, Damian discloses the material of the first side and material of the second side is suitable for cleaning (Fig. 1-11; para. 24-30). This limitation is intended use.
Re Claim 8, Damian discloses the second side comprises a design element (Fig. 9-11; para. 38-40).
Re Claim 9, Damian discloses the design elements are comprised of the same material as the device (Fig. 11; para. 40: sections 52/56 of the towel are folded and stitched which makes design elements).
Re Claim 10, Damian discloses the design elements comprise a stitched element (Fig. 11; para. 40: sections 52/56 of the towel are folded and stitched which makes design elements).
Re Claim 11, as best understood, Damian discloses the design element is comprised of a different material than that of the towel (Fig. 9-10; para. 38-39: “marker, paint, adhesive or any other method of demarking the towel material can be used”).
Re Claim 12, Damian discloses a method for cleaning, comprising: a. placing the towel of claim 1 on an arm of an individual (para. 43-46); b. securing the towel of claim 1 on the arm (para. 43-46); c. grasping the second side of the towel with a hand located on the arm (para. 43-46); d. passing the first side over an area to be cleaned (para. 43-46); e. releasing the second side (para. 43-46); f. freeing the hands to go about other tasks (para. 43-46); and g. keeping the towel of claim 1 secured on the arm (Fig. 1-11; para. 43-46).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog (or Damian in view of Herzog) in view of Morris (PGPub 2010/0178821).
Re Claim 13-14, Herzog (or Damian) do not disclose use of a cleaner which is a chemical cleaner. Morris teaches use of a cleaner which is a chemical cleaner for a towel (para. 24). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize use of a cleaner which is a chemical cleaner, as taught by Morris, in order to protect the person from the spread of germs and combat the spread of infection and inhibit the growth of bacteria (para. 24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6-7 that The amendment to claim 1 adds limitations that include (1) the opening is suitable to pass a human hand through said opening, (2) the opening is capable of securing the towel on the arm of an individual, and (3) the towel is able to be grasped by the hand in proximity to the towel to clean a surface using the hand. These elements combined are not anticipated by Herzog. The preamble of claim 1 has also been amended to describe a human-wearable towel. Amended Claim 1 is thus patentably distinct from Herzog. Herzog discloses a towel with four holes which allow hands and shoulders to exert gentle and relaxing pressure on the neck (Herzog, abstract). Herzog further discloses that the holes are intended for ease of putting the towel around the neck and held with both hands to relax the cervical spine (Herzog, description). Herzog further describes that traditional towels must be grasped tightly with both hands, and that the invention of Herzog allows for both hands to be placed in the separate holes to assist in relaxing the neck (Herzog, description). Herzog does not disclose a towel with one hole to be secured to one arm and used by that same arm to clean. The invention of Herzog requires four holes to allow both hands to pass through in order to secure the towel around one's neck. This requires two hands to practice the invention of Herzog, and therefore does not anticipate the present invention. Applicant makes similar arguments for the Damian reference rejection. -In response, note that the additional holes of Herzog are immaterial, the claim requires a hole and Herzog discloses a hole. Applicant is mainly relying on intended use of their invention as a distinction which does not distinguish for a product claim. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. I See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963). For example, one would be denied a patent of a known device such as a pencil if they claimed the identical structure but recited that it can be used as a dart; the prior art pencil can be used as a dart inherently. Thus, to obtain a patent an applicant would need to have some specific structure to distinguish from the prior art in order to obtain a patent, not merely claim an intended use, if that intended use can be performed by the prior art. These same arguments apply to the Damian reference rejection and note that the rejection has been adjusted to a 103 rejection because of the new amendments. These arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are upheld.
Applicant further argues that dependent claim rejections should be withdrawn based on arguments for claim 1 in view of the amendments. -These arguments are moot in view of the rejections and arguments above. These arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are upheld.
Additionally, note new reference Stein which is applied above as well as other new references in attached form 892 which also read on the invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799