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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 5A-B are black/white photographs and are visually unclear. In this instance, photographs are not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(b)(1). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in this application because the hand-sketched drawings (Figs. 1-3 and 4A-B) are visually unclear. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings, specifically Figs. 1-3 and 4A-B, are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 0.32cm (1/8in) in height and they should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension: they should not cross or mingle with the lines; they should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces; and when necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-3 and 4A-B are low resolution, dithered, and in grayscale/halftones, rendering them visually unclear. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l). Moreover, the clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20220212385 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20240416372 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap) and uploading them to USPTO Patent Center as “Drawings-other than black and white line drawings”, which should cause the filed image file to be stored in the SCORE database without any image conversion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Terry Loops” (claim 7, line 3) should be changed to --terry loops--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein an outer diameter of the cylindrical tube body is 10 to 200 percent larger than that of the first opening and the second opening, a more focused 30 to 175 percent according to a first implementation, and an even more focused implementation of 40 to 100 percent according to a second implementation.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). Here, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “10 to 200 percent larger”, but also recites “30 to 175 percent” and “40 to 100 percent”, which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or is a required feature of the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
McKenzie1
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040163196 A1 (“McKenzie1”).
McKenzie1 pertains to a cleaning sleeve (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-B, 2-6, 7A-H) and is in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, McKenzie1 discloses a washcloth sleeve (Abstr.; ¶ 0030; Figs. 1A-B, sleeve as shown (e.g., Figs. 1A-B) is capable of being used as a washcloth; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use (i.e., as a washcloth). 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. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)), comprising:
a cylindrical tube body defining a longitudinal axis; the cylindrical tube body having a first opening at a first longitudinal end and a second opening at a second longitudinal end opposite to the first longitudinal end relative to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1A-B, cylindrical tube body 10 with first and second openings 14 configured as recited, longitudinal axis is vertical as shown in Figs. 1A-B; ¶ 0029, “a cylindrical configuration with two open ends”);
wherein at least one of the first opening and the second opening is stretchable radially outwards... (Figs. 1A-B, first and second openings 14 are stretchable radially outwards via elastic 16 and ruffle 24; ¶ 0029).
McKenzie1 does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first opening and the second opening is stretchable radially outwards by at least 10 percent of its initial diameter. However, McKenzie1 makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify McKenzie1 such that the first and second openings are stretchable radially outwards by at least 10 percent of its initial diameter. McKenzie1 teaches the use of elastic 16 and ruffle 24 so that the first and second openings could stretch and thereby fit onto and conform to a user’s hand, arm, and/or wrist or another device like a handle (McKenzie1 Figs. 7A-H). To the extent this limitation is not disclosed by McKenzie1, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because this is simply a design choice that results in a better fitting product (e.g., the openings having sufficient stretch to accommodate slipping over different users’ arm anatomies (or different devices like a brooms with handles, McKenzie1 Fig. 7H) and to provide for a tighter fit to a user’s arm or a device like a handle (i.e., the elastic 16 is designed to be strong and tight, while still allowing for a great amount of circumferential stretch)) (see US 9404199 B2 (“Tanaka”) Table 6 (at columns 37-38) showing examples of elastic yarn with up to and over 400% of elongation (“stretch”)). Applicant has not disclosed that having any particular amount of stretch for the openings provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement (see Spec. ¶ 0020, discussing different embodiments having openings stretchable radially outwards by at least 10%, 50%, 180%, and 400% of its initial diameter). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one of the first opening and the second opening stretches by at least 50 percent of its initial diameter (Figs. 1A-B, first and second openings 14 are stretchable radially outwards via elastic 16 and ruffle 24; ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify McKenzie1 such that the first and second openings are stretchable radially outwards by at least 50 percent of its initial diameter for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one of the first opening and the second opening stretches up to 400 percent of its initial diameter (Figs. 1A-B, first and second openings 14 are stretchable radially outwards via elastic 16 and ruffle 24; ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify McKenzie1 such that the first and second openings are stretchable radially outwards up to 400 percent of its initial diameter for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the second opening defines an inner diameter equal to or smaller than that of the first opening (Figs. 1A-B, the inner diameters of the first and second openings 14 are the same).
Regarding claim 5, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the cylindrical tube body has an outer diameter equal to or greater than that of the first longitudinal end and of the second longitudinal end (Figs. 1A-B, the outer diameter of the cylindrical tube body 10 is the same as the outer diameters of the first and second longitudinal ends 14).
Regarding claim 6, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the first longitudinal end and the second longitudinal end have an elastic band delimiting the first opening and the second opening, respectively, and wherein a material of the cylindrical tube body is folded around the elastic band of the first longitudinal end and of the second longitudinal end (Figs. 1A-B, elastic bands 16 delimit the first and second openings 14 and the cylindrical tube body 10 is folded around elastic bands 16 (e.g., elastic bands 16 are enclosed within the cylindrical tube body 10)).
Regarding claim 8, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the first opening is configured to fit a forearm of a person, and the second opening is configured to fit a wrist of a person (Figs. 1A-B, 7C; ¶ 0037, the first opening is capable of fitting a user’s forearm, and the second opening is capable of fitting a user’s wrist).
Regarding claim 9, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the cylindrical tube body is 10 to 200 percent larger than that of the first opening and the second opening, a more focused 30 to 175 percent according to a first implementation, and an even more focused implementation of 40 to 100 percent according to a second implementation (Figs. 1A-B, 2, 4-6, 7A-H, showing various embodiments and configurations of washcloth sleeves where the outer diameter of the cylindrical tube body 10 is larger than the outer diameters of the first and second openings; see § 112(b) rejection).
To the extent this limitation is not disclosed by McKenzie1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify McKenzie1 such that the outer diameter of the cylindrical tube body 10 is 10 to 200 percent larger than that of the first opening and the second opening. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because this is simply a design choice that results in a product with more surface area for better cleaning (McKenzie1 Fig. 4; ¶ 0032, “FIG. 4 shows an enlarged pattern with all sides joined or stitched before the applied casing 18 for the elastic 16 is added. This sleeve is usually used for drying large, flat areas.”). Applicant has not disclosed that having any particular outer diameter size for the cylindrical tube body relative to the first and second openings provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration and range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement (see Spec. ¶ 0016, discussing different embodiments where the diameter of the cylindrical tube body is 10% to 200% larger, 30% to 175% larger, and 40% to 100% larger than the diameter of the first and second openings). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 10, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the cylindrical tube body has a radial width to axial length of 15 to 200 percent (Figs. 1A-B, the radial width to axial length ratio of the cylindrical tube body 10 as shown meets the recited range).
To the extent this limitation is not disclosed by McKenzie1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify McKenzie1 such that the radial width to axial length ratio of the cylindrical tube body 10 is between 15 to 200 percent. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because this is simply a design choice; for example, a larger ratio (closer to 200%) results in a product with more surface area for better cleaning (McKenzie1 Fig. 4; ¶ 0032, “FIG. 4 shows an enlarged pattern with all sides joined or stitched before the applied casing 18 for the elastic 16 is added. This sleeve is usually used for drying large, flat areas.”). Applicant has not disclosed that having any particular radial width to axial length ratio of the cylindrical tube body provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration and range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
McKenzie1 in view of Wenzel
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040163196 A1 (“McKenzie1”) in view of US 4893372 A (“Wenzel”).
McKenzie1 pertains to a cleaning sleeve (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-B, 2-6, 7A-H). Wenzel pertains to a cleaning sleeve (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, McKenzie1 makes obvious the washcloth sleeve of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the cylindrical tube body is composed of a base material including at least of cotton and polyester or other natural and man-made materials... (Figs. 1A-B; ¶ 0030, “In the preferred embodiment, the dusting-cleaning sleeve body 10 is constructed in a micro fiber material which excels for all-purpose use; dusting, cleaning, washing, polishing or drying etc. However, virtually any material typically used for cleaning may be used for the base of my dusting-cleaning sleeve. For example, a fleece material works very well for the application of cleaning solutions; a cotton fabric may be chosen for absorption; a fibrous material for aggressive tasks; a disposable paper material for convenience, etc.”).
McKenzie1 does not explicitly disclose wherein Terry Loops are woven into the base material. However, the McKenzie1/Wenzel combination makes obvious this claim.
Wenzel discloses wherein Terry Loops are woven into the base material (Figs. 1-4; 1:35-38, “It is also an object to provide a towel which can be made of various desired types of cotton, wool and synthetic material, including terry cloth, flannel and chamois skin.”; 2:5-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wenzel with McKenzie1 to use a terry cloth (having terry loops) as the material for the cylindrical tube body 10. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is simply a design choice of materials (McKenzie1 ¶ 0030, contemplating the use of various materials), where the use of terry cloth provides for a very absorbent washcloth sleeve compared to some other materials. Further, the use of terry cloth (having terry loops) for the cylindrical tube body 10 is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 20120204900 A1 (“McKenzie2”) discloses a tubular towel for a user’s arm (Abstr.; Figs. 14A-D, 15A-C);
US 20160100639 A1 (“Sheedy”) discloses a tubular towel for a user’s arm (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8);
JP 2004305727 A (“Iwata”) discloses a tubular towel for a user’s arm (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723