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):
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.
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, 2, 4, 5 and 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 in the penultimate line states transfer at least 85% of the absorbed liquid cleaning solution to a surface. However, these limitation was not in claim previously and these new limitation from previous claim 6 is not underlined. Therefore, the claim is rejected at least because portions of claim 1 are underlined that are indeed new while others parts of claim 1 are new as well but not underlined, which is ambiguous as to what Applicant is presenting as new claim limitations. 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 from the open bucket. The preamble is limited to the cleaning towel but the cleaning solution is a separate entity with respect to the cleaning towel. If the cleaning towel is being claimed but not the cleaning solution, then it is immaterial what percentage of the cleaning solution is on the towel once it theoretically absorbs the cleaning solution.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
2. 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:
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 1, 2, 4, 5 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 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. However, 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. (See Col. 10 lines 10-25);
Moreover, Lee et al. teaches in the open bucket cleaning application wherein the nonwoven fabric is not pre-soaked and is instead submerged in the liquid cleaning solution in order to absorb some of the liquid cleaning solution from the open bucket, transfer at least 85% 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). However, Lee et al. is silent regarding that the particular percentage is at least 85%. 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 2, Lee et al. as modified above, teaches 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 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 5, Lee et al. discloses that the fabric (10) may include one (at least one color) or more colors respectively indicating a corresponding cleaning are for the open bucket application (See Col. 16 lines 40-60).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. is silent that the particular percentage is at least ninety percent of the absorbed liquid cleaning solution to a surface on which the cleaning towel is placed. 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, 2, 4, 5 and 7 have been considered but are not persuasive. At page 4, the Applicant argues that the Lee et al. relates to industrial laundering conditions, which is unrelated problems to those addressed in the present invention. Further, the Applicant contends that there are fundamental differences in how the nonwoven fabric invention is designed and how the fabric of Lee et al. is designed. The Applicant further alleges that Lee et al. is heavier towel and it does not anticipate a nonwoven fabric that is designed to have a weight density between the ten grams per square meter. Additionally, the Applicant contends that Lee et al. is simply silent on the unrelated question regarding the degree of the transfer of the absorbed liquid cleaning solution to a surface (See Remarks at page 7). However, the Applicant’s invention is limited to the cleaning towel as explained in the 112 rejection above; therefore, the claims are limited to the structure of the towel and it is certainly capable of absorbing cleaning solution but the claims do not expressly require the towel and the cleaning solution. In response to applicant's argument that the invention is capable of absorbing 85% of a cleaning solution, which is not being claimed per se, 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.
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.
Conclusion
4. 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
Prosecution Insights