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 1-7 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.
Independent claim 1 line 5 is rejected since the term light in weight is relative and is not clear what the reference point would be since all towels are light in weight compared to other household items or whether the statement implies that the towel in light in weight relative to other cleaning towels. Additionally, claim 1 line 8 is rejected since it not clear whether the cleaning liquid is part of the invention based on the limitation submerged in the liquid cleaning solution in order to absorb some of the liquid cleaning solution. The preamble is limited to the cleaning towel but the cleaning solution is a separate entity with respect to the cleaning towel.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (11,220,086) to Lee et al. (previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee et al. discloses nonwoven fabric (30) including continuous filaments which are randomly laid with the nonwoven fabric designed to: have a weight density in a particular range such that the cleaning towel is light in weight (See Col. 10 lines 10-25);
and in an open bucket cleaning application wherein the nonwoven fabric is not pre-soaked with a liquid cleaning solution and is instead submerged in the liquid cleaning solution in order to absorb some of the liquid cleaning solution, transfer at least a particular percentage of the absorbed liquid cleaning solution (See claim 26) to a surface on which the cleaning towel (10) is placed (See Col. 9 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. discloses a polypropylene (PP) type of material, a polyethylene (PE) type of material, a Bio-PE type of material, or a Bio-PP type of material (See col. 11 lines 35-50).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al.. discloses that the fabric (10) may include one (at least one color) or more colors (See Col. 16 lines 40-60).
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 3-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (11,220,086) to Lee et al. (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. is silent regarding that the particular range of the weight density of the fabric is between ten grams per square meter (GSM) to sixty GSM. However, absent criticality in the specification this fifty (GSM) range would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date in order to achieve optimization for a particular manufacturing objective.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. is silent the particular range of the weight density of the fabric is twenty grams per square meter (GSM) to fifty GSM. However, absent criticality in the specification this thirty GSM) range would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date in order to achieve optimization for a particular manufacturing objective.
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. is silent regarding that the particular percentage is at least eighty-five percent. However, since the material of Lee et al. is capable of transferring a significant amount of an absorbed liquid or cleaning solution it would have been obvious to try adapt the material to be capable of absorbing at least eight-five percent since such would have been obvious to try to improve optimization.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. is silent that the particular percentage is at least ninety percent. However, since the material of Lee et al. is capable of transferring a significant amount of an absorbed liquid or cleaning solution it would have been obvious to try adapt the material to be capable of absorbing at least eight-five percent since such would have been obvious to try to improve optimization.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Applicant’s amendments to withdrawn claims still do not constitute a unity of inventions since the claims are still patentably distinct especially with the method claim 17. The restriction is maintained with respect to claims 8-11 and 14-20 and the claims are still considered withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
5. 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