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 .
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending
Claim 15 has been withdrawn
Claim 6 has been canceled
Claims 1 and 17-18 have been amended
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 17-18 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.
Claims 17 and 18 recites tensile strength with units of “N” interpreted as Newtons (N) based on applicants filed specification pages 7-8. However, Tensile strength = maximum tensile force / specimen cross-sectional area, where “Newton” is unit of force. Therefore, the recited tensile strength is missing the unit of cross sectional area. As a result, the metes and bounds of the tensile strength range are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 10-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. US 6,503,615 (US’615) in view of in view of Okada et al. JP 2002355211 (JP’211) (machine translation used for citation).
Regarding claim 1, US’615 teaches a cleaning implement comprising: a foam (a melamine resin foam, col. 1) having a density from 8 to 36 kg/m3 (an open-cell structure having a density of 5 to 50 kg/m3 col. 2 examples shown in table one include a density of 9, 20 and 11 kg/m3, which are within applicants claimed range), wherein: the cleaning implement has a thickness, a width, and a depth (see fig. 1-2 rectangular parallelepiped, col. 6); the thickness is at least 22 mm (the wiping cleaner 20 takes the form of a rectangular parallelepiped of 110 x 70 x 35 mm, 35 mm thickness is within applicants claimed range of at least 22 mm); the width is less than the depth; and the width is greater than the thickness; wherein said cleaning implement has a top surface having said width and said depth (70mm is greater that 35mm, which reads on the width is greater than the thickness, and 70mm is less than 110mm, which reads on the width is less than the depth).
US’615 does not teach wherein said top surface comprises raised portions and depressed portions, wherein said depressed portions form crisscrossing diagonal lines or chevrons.
JP’211 teaches a melamine resin foam cleaning tool for wiping and removing dirt adhered to surfaces (page 1-2). As shown in FIG. 1, a large number of protrusions 12a are formed on the plane 12b forming a continuous diamond-shaped concavo-convex pattern portion 12 as shown in FIG. 1 is formed by embossing on the surface of the cleaning tool body produced by compressing the melamine resin foam. If the surface has the uneven pattern portion 12, when rubbing the surface to remove dirt the convex portion mainly removes dirt, and the dirt removal effect and durability are further increased compared with the case of rubbing on a flat surface. (para. 4-5, see fig. 1-3). Wherein a pattern formed of protruding diamonds reads on wherein said top surface comprises raised portions and depressed portions, wherein said depressed portions form crisscrossing diagonal lines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning implement of US’615 to include wherein said top surface comprises raised portions and depressed portions, wherein said depressed portions form crisscrossing diagonal lines or chevrons because JP’211 teaches patterned surfaces of melamine foam cleaning tools increase dirt removal effect and durability compared to flat surfaces and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 16, the modified cleaning implement of US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’615 further teaches the thickness ranges from 28 to 45 mm, with regard to claim 2 and wherein the thickness ranges from 30 to 35 mm with regard to claim 3, wherein the thickness ranges from 35 to 40 mm, with regard to claim 16 (the thickness of the cleaner is 35 mm as discussed above, col. 6).
Regarding claims 4-5, the modified cleaning implement of US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’615 further teaches wherein the width ranges from 46 to 125 mm, with regard to claim 4 (the width is 70 mm, which is within applicants claimed range) and wherein the depth ranges from 46 to 125 mm (the depth is 110 mm, which is within applicants claimed range), with regard to claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the modified cleaning implement of US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 6. US’615 further teaches wherein the cleaning implement has a rectangular prism shape (see fig. 1-2, col. 7, a rectangular parallelepiped).
Regarding claim 8, the modified cleaning implement of US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’615 further teaches wherein the cleaning implement has a cross-sectional surface area ranging from 1012 to 5625 mm2 (70mm x 35mm cross section is equal to a cross-sectional surface area of 2,450mm2, which is within applicants claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, the modified cleaning implement of US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’615 further teaches wherein the cleaning implement has a volume from 40 to 750 cc (a 110x70x35 mm cleaning implement would have a volume of 245 cc)
Regarding claims 11-12, the modified cleaning implement of US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’615 further teaches wherein the foam comprises melamine, with regard to claim 11 and wherein the foam comprises melamine-formaldehyde, with regard to claim 12 (Melamine-formaldehyde, see table 1).
Regarding claims 17-20, the modified cleaning implement of US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’948 is silent with regard to the foam having a wet tensile strength of from 90 to 150 N, with regard to claim 17, a wet tensile strength of from 95 to 140 N, with regard to claim 18, a maximum force distribution area of greater than or equal to 6 in2 at greater than or equal to 0.5 pounds, with regard to claim 19 and a maximum force distribution area of greater than 7.5 in2 at greater than or equal to 1 pounds, with regard to claim 20.
However, the wet tensile strength, dry tensile strength and the maximum force distribution area appear to be the result of particular structural features of the cleaning implement, including the thickness and density, and appear to be directly related to the cleaning efficiency of the cleaning implement, see page 2-24 and 29-30, tables 6-10 of applicants filed specification. Further, claims 17-20 depend from claim 1 which only requires a foam having a density of 8 to 36 kg/m3 and a thickness of at least 22 mm. Therefore, it would appear that any cleaning implement with density and thickness within the ranges recited in claim 1 would inherently have the recited wet tensile strength, dry tensile strength and the maximum force distribution area. US’615 teaches a thickness and density within applicants claimed ranges recited in claim 1, as discussed above, see col 2-7, table 1, the wiping cleaner 20 has a grip portion 25 made of flexible urethane foam having a density of about 30 kg/m3, it takes the form of a rectangular parallelepiped of 110x70x 35 mm, in which the melamine resin foam 21 has a thickness of 15 mm, a density of 9, 20 and 11 kg/m3 and the grip portion 25 has a thickness of 20 mm. Therefore, it appears that the cleaning implement taught by US’615 would have the wet tensile strength, dry tensile strength and the maximum force distribution area recited in claims 17-20.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzales et al. US 2007/0157948 (US’948) in view of Okada et al. JP 2002355211 (JP’211) (machine translation used for citation).
Regarding claim 1, US’948 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. a cleaning implement comprising: a foam (open cell foam, para. 17) having a density from 8 to 36 kg/m3 (open-cell foam having a density of 5 to 1,000 kg/m3 para 8, which overlaps applicants claimed range), wherein: the cleaning implement has a thickness, a width, and a depth (see fig. 1 a cuboid shape defined by three groups of parallel and equal length sides, para. 21); the thickness is at least 22 mm (a ranges from about 2 cm (20mm) to about 20 cm (200mm), even more preferably from about 15 mm to about 50 mm, para. 21-22, which overlaps applicants claimed range); the width is less than or substantially equal to the depth; and the width is greater than the thickness; wherein said cleaning implement has a top surface having said width and said depth (a cuboid shape defined by three groups of parallel and equal length sides, referred to as a, b and c, wherein a ranges from about 2 cm to about 20 cm, preferably about 4 cm to about 8 cm, b ranges from about 2 cm to about 20 cm preferably about 8 cm to about 15 cm, and c ranges from about 1.5 cm to about 5 cm, these ranges overlap applicants claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of density and dimensions because US’948 teaches overlapping ranges for the density and dimensions, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
US’948 does not teach wherein said top surface comprises raised portions and depressed portions, wherein said depressed portions form crisscrossing diagonal lines or chevrons.
JP’211 teaches a melamine resin foam cleaning tool for wiping and removing dirt adhered to surfaces (page 1-2). As shown in FIG. 1, a large number of protrusions 12a are formed on the plane 12b forming a continuous diamond-shaped concavo-convex pattern portion 12 as shown in FIG. 1 is formed by embossing on the surface of the cleaning tool body produced by compressing the melamine resin foam. If the surface has the uneven pattern portion 12, when rubbing the surface to remove dirt the convex portion mainly removes dirt, and the dirt removal effect and durability are further increased compared with the case of rubbing on a flat surface. (para. 4-5, see fig. 1-3). Wherein a pattern formed of protruding diamonds reads on wherein said top surface comprises raised portions and depressed portions, wherein said depressed portions form crisscrossing diagonal lines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified cleaning implement of US’948 to include wherein said top surface comprises raised portions and depressed portions, wherein said depressed portions form crisscrossing diagonal lines or chevrons because JP’211 teaches patterned surfaces of melamine foam cleaning tools increase dirt removal effect and durability compared to flat surfaces, and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 9, the modified cleaning implement of US’948 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’948 further teaches wherein the cleaning implement has an average pore diameter from 1 to 1000 µm (para.8).
Regarding claims 13-14, the modified cleaning implement of US’948 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1. US’948 further teaches the cleaning implement further comprising biocides, with regard to claim 13 and further comprising, filler materials, with regard to claim 14 (para. 144 and 188).
Regarding claims 17-20, US’948 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1.
The modified cleaning implement of US’948 is silent with regard to the cleaning implement having a wet tensile strength of from 90 to 150 N, with regard to claim 17, a wet tensile strength of from 95 to 140 N, with regard to claim 18, a maximum force distribution area of greater than or equal to 6 in2 at greater than or equal to 0.5 pounds, with regard to claim 19 and a maximum force distribution area of greater than 7.5 in2 at greater than or equal to 1 pounds, with regard to claim 20.
However, the wet tensile strength, dry tensile strength and the maximum force distribution area appear to be the result of particular structural features of the cleaning implement, including the thickness and density, and appear to be directly related to the cleaning efficiency of the cleaning implement, see page 2-24 and 29-30, tables 6-10 of applicants filed specification. Particular mention in the specification is made to example 27 with a height of 37mm and a density of 18 kg/m3, which are within the contemplated ranges of US’948 of the height, from about 15 mm to about 50 mm, and the density 7-300 kg/m3 of the cleaning implement (para. 22 and 126). Further, claims 17-20 depend from claim 1 which only requires a density of 8 to 36 kg/m3 and a thickness of at least 22 mm. Therefore, it would appear that any cleaning implement with density and thickness within the ranges recited in claim 1 would satisfy the recited wet tensile strength, dry tensile strength and the maximum force distribution area. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select applicants disclosed thickness and density that would result in the recites wet tensile strength, dry tensile strength and the maximum force distribution area because US’948 teaches a range of thicknesses and densities that would result in these features in a cleaning implement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of the cleaning implement having a wet tensile strength of from 90 to 150 N, with regard to claim 17, a wet tensile strength of from 95 to 140 N, with regard to claim 18, a maximum force distribution area of greater than or equal to 6 in2 at greater than or equal to 0.5 pounds, with regard to claim 19 and a maximum force distribution area of greater than 7.5 in2 at greater than or equal to 1 pounds, with regard to claim 20 because ne of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select applicants disclosed thickness and density that would result in the recites wet tensile strength, dry tensile strength and the maximum force distribution area because US’948 teaches a range of thicknesses and densities that would result in these features in a cleaning implement, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’615 in view of JP’211 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzales et al. US 2007/0157948 (US’948).
Regarding claim 9, US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1.
US’615 is silent with regard to the pore size and that the cleaning implement has an average pore diameter from 1 to 1000 µm.
US’948 teaches a cleaning implement (1) comprising a modified open-cell foam (2), including melamine-formaldehyde resins, with a density in the range from about 5 to about 1,000 kg/m3 and with an average pore diameter in the range from about 1 µm to about 1 mm (1000 µm). The open cell foam is useful for removing soils and/or stains from a hard surface (para. 1-8, 116-117). Therefore, US’948 teaches that the pore diameter of the cleaning implement of US’615 should be in the range from about 1 µm to about 1 mm (1000 µm) in order to provide the desired cleaning results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of the cleaning implement has an average pore diameter from 1 to 1000 µm because US’948 teaches overlapping ranges for the pore diameter, and that the pore diameter of the cleaning implement of US’615 should be in the range from about 1 µm to about 1 mm (1000 µm) in order to provide the desired cleaning results and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 13-14, US’615 teaches the cleaning implement of claim 1.
US’615 does not teach further comprising biocides, bleaching agents, limescale reducing agents, solvents, polymers, solids, surfactants, colorants, lubricants, cross-linkers, fragrances, plasticizers, odor scavengers, microcapsules, or combinations thereof, with regard to claim 13 and further comprising abrasive materials, filler materials, or both, with regard to claim 14.
US’948 teaches a cleaning implement (1) comprising a modified open-cell foam, including melamine-formaldehyde resins. Open-cell foams may, of course, also comprise additives customary in foam chemistry, for example antioxidants, flame retardants, fillers, colorants such as pigments or dyes, and biocides (para. 1-8, 120-130 and 144). Therefore, US’948 teaches that open foam cleaning implements, such as those taught by US’615 can commonly include biocides and fillers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning implement of US’615 to include biocides, with regard to claim 13 and fillers with regard to claim 14 because US’948 teaches that open foam cleaning implements, such as those taught by US’615 can commonly include biocides and fillers and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 to include subject matter regarding raised portions and depressed portions on the top surface has changed the scope of claim 1, and as a result, the 102 and 103 rejection of claim 1 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 5-2-25 is withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 as obvious over US’615 in view of JP’211 and US’948 in view of JP’211 which includes both the rejections of claim 1 as stated in the non-final office action and additional discussion regarding the teachings of JP’211 relating to the features added to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with regard to the teachings of US’615 and US’948 and the amendments made to claim 1 with regard to the top surface comprises raised portions and depressed portions, wherein said depressed portions form crisscrossing diagonal lines or chevrons have been considered but are moot due to the references not being relied on for teaching the additional feature.
Applicants’ amendments to claims 17 and 18 have not overcome the 112 rejections. As discussed in the non-final office action Tensile strength = maximum tensile force / specimen cross-sectional area, where “Newton” is unit of force. Therefore, the recited tensile strength is missing the unit of cross sectional area. As a result, the metes and bounds of the tensile strength range are unclear. Tensile strength is a measure of the stress a material can withstand while being stretched not a measure of force. Stress and force are different measurements with different units representing the quantity of each. Force can be measured in Newtons whereas stress is measured in for example N/m2 or Pa. Adding “said foam has a wet tensile strength”, does not define the unit of cross sectional area and therefore the metes and bounds of the tensile strength range are still unclear.
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713