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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and made final.
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 1, 3, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper US 2006/0230567) in view of Kingry (US 6,651,290).
Regarding claim 1, Harper discloses a towel quick connector cleaning wand comprising:
a cleaning wand having a base (Item 120) with a top surface and bottom surface and formed with a plurality of openings extending through the top and bottom surfaces (Figure 5),
a retaining aperture within each said opening (Item 320), and
a plurality of tabs within each retaining aperture
wherein the tabs are deformable to allow a portion of a cleaning towel to pass through (Paragraph 78), and
Harper fails to explicitly disclose wherein the tabs have a resilience that tends to close the openings, thereby capturing the towel.
Kingry teaches a cleaning wand wherein the tabs have a resilience that tends to close the openings, thereby capturing the towel (Column 4 Lines 15-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the retainer of Harper for that taught by Kingry. Harper relies on Kingry for the retaining mechanism, but does not use the words “incorporated by reference”. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be highly successful by sing the retainer of Kingry to hold the cleaning article as discussed in Harper.
Regarding claim 3, Harper in view of Kingry disclose the towel quick connector pad of claim 1 wherein said cleaning wand further comprises a compressible foam medium (Harper Item 220 Paragraphs 41-45).
Regarding claim 6, Harper in view of Kingry disclose the towel quick connector cleaning wand of claim 1 wherein the plurality of tabs in each retaining aperture further comprises at least eight internally projecting plastic tabs (Kingry Column 4 Lines 15-65; Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Harper discloses a towel quick connector cleaning wand comprising:
a base (Item 120),
a handle (Item 30) terminating in a hinge rod oriented orthogonally to said handle (Figure 5),
a pair of hinge receivers on said base configured to receive said hinge rod such that said base is rotatable axially around said hinge rod and said hinge rod is removable from said base (Figure 5 shows a pair of arms extending vertically with a slot and a formed outer radius to slide the block joint in and out of),
a compressible foam pad (Item 220) sized to approximate said base and that has,and said base has a top surface and a bottom surface and formed with a plurality of bores,
; and
a towel removably attached to said aperture, wherein said towel is flexible, thereby conforming approximately to said top a bottom surface of said compressible foam pad (Paragraph 44, “cleaning substrate”).
Harper fails to explicitly disclose wherein an aperture comprising of a rigid tube and a locking mechanism within a bore of the plurality of bores that is attached to said base within each said bore (Figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the retainer of Harper for that taught by Kingry. Harper relies on Kingry for the retaining mechanism, but does not use the words “incorporated by reference”. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be highly successful by sing the retainer of Kingry to hold the cleaning article as discussed in Harper.
Regarding claim 8, Harper in view of Kingry disclose the towel quick connector cleaning wand of claim 7, further comprising a gap between said a top surface of the foam pad and said locking mechanism of said aperture (Harper Figure 4b shows a top surface at 220 and a gap to the top of the locking mechanism at roughly 120).
Regarding claim 10 Harper in view of Kingry disclose the towel quick connector cleaning wand of claim 7, wherein said locking mechanism further comprises a plurality of internally projecting plastic tabs located at the opening of said rigid tube (Kingry Figures 6 and 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 are 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights