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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 3 and 5 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.
Claim 3 recites that the outer fabric is configured to clean a surface in compliance with European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (EU GMP) Annex 1 with a single wipe of the surface. However, the EU GMP Annex 1 is updated over time, making it unclear what requirements are made in the scope of the claim as presented.
Claim 5 recite “cleaning use case” and “lot identify”. It is unclear what is meant by these phrases. The specification does not use these phrases and there is not a well understood and clear meaning for the phrases. Without context and/or guidance in the specification, there are many interpretations of the phrases that could be taken. For the purpose of examination “cleaning use case” is understood include in its scope “cleaning instructions” and “lot identity” is understood to include in its scope “place of purchase”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mauer et al (US 20140315474 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mauer discloses a cleaning mitt (figures 1-14; paragraph 0006 sets forth the device can be used for cleaning), the cleaning mitt comprising: an outer fabric 114 (paragraph 0006 and 0069 discloses cleaning/polishing material; marriam-webster defines “fabric” as “cloth” or “material that resembles cloth” wherein the material 114 at least resembles cloth) and an inner fabric 116 (figure 7), the outer fabric being configured for cleaning surfaces (paragraph 0006 and 0069); a receiving opening (at 118 figure 12) configured for receiving a hand of a user; a seamless folding edge (top edge near “114” in figure 8 and near “110” in figure 12) arranged opposite the receiving opening; and at least two corner openings on either side of the seamless folding edge (see openings on either side of flap near “114” in figure 8; also seen in figure 3, 13, 14).
Regarding claim 8, at least part of the inner fabric is exposed and extends beyond the receiving opening (inner fabric seen on either side of 114 in figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, the outer fabric is arranged on each of two sides of the cleaning mitt (paragraph 0062 discloses treatment surface wraps fully around the leading edge of the device, meaning the treatment surface is on two sides of the device), and wherein the outer fabric of each side is configured to clean at least 100 square feet of a flat stainless steel surface (disclosed structure is capable of being used in this manner).
Regarding claim 10, the inner fabric and the outer fabric each comprise a single uninterrupted body of fabric (see figure 7 showing no interruptions in the two materials).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer in view of Jones, III (US 20060014462 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mauer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Mauer is silent regarding the outer fabric comprises a microfiber having a cleaning efficacy rated to provide a 4-log reduction on a surface with a single wipe during a cleaning operation.
However, Jones, III teaches microfiber used to clean, wherein it is set forth that efficacy is a result effective variable, wherein deep groove microfibers are stratified on the outermost layer to maximize contact with the surface to be cleaned, such that this maximizes cleaning efficacy (paragraph 0016). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Mauer by using microfiber as the cleaning material of the cleaning mitt, as taught by Jones, III, for the purpose of providing increased contact with the surface to be cleaned and increasing cleaning efficacy, and maximizing cleaning efficacy such that the cleaning efficacy is rated to provide a 4-log reduction on a surface with a single wipe during a cleaning operation since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer in view of the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union Volume 4 EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use.
Regarding claim 3, Mauer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Mauer is silent regarding the outer fabric is configured to clean a surface in compliance with European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (EU GMP) Annex 1 with a single wipe of the surface. However, the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union Volume 4 EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use sets forth the guidelines to produce such a product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Mauer, by having the outer fabric configured to clean a surface in compliance with European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (EU GMP) Annex 1 with a single wipe of the surface, as taught by the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union Volume 4 EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use, for the purpose of the product being accepted as a sterile product.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer in view of Dixon (US 20180122273 A1).
Regarding claims 4-7, Mauer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Mauer is silent regarding the mitt comprises a label affixed on the inner fabric of the article , and wherein the label includes identifying information uniquely identifying the article; wherein the identifying information includes one or more of an owner identity, a cleaning use case, and a lot identity; wherein the identifying information comprises one or more of a bar code or a quick response (QR) code; wherein the label further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing the identifying information.
Dixon teaches an article of clothing in the same field of endeavor as a cleaning mitt, that being items worn by a user, wherein the article comprises a label 11 affixed on the inner fabric of the article , and wherein the label includes identifying information uniquely identifying the article (paragraph 0008; “wear history”; paragraph 0039, 0045, 0048, 0057, 0059); wherein the identifying information includes one or more of an owner identity, a cleaning use case (interpreted as “cleaning insructions”), and a lot identity (interpreted as “place of purchase”) paragraph 0039, 0045, 0048, 0057, 0059); wherein the identifying information comprises one or more of a bar code or a quick response (QR) code (paragraph 0006); wherein the label further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing the identifying information (paragraph 0006 and 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Mauer by providing the mitt with a label affixed on the inner fabric of the article , and wherein the label includes identifying information uniquely identifying the article; wherein the identifying information includes one or more of an owner identity, a cleaning use case, and a lot identity; wherein the identifying information comprises one or more of a bar code or a quick response (QR) code; wherein the label further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing the identifying information, as taught by Dixon, for the purpose of allowing sight impaired or blind persons to tactually, or via an electronic interpretation device, e.g., personal computer, a smartphone, computer tablet, magnetic stripe reader, NFC communicator, RFID reader, or Bluetooth device, comprehend the identification information of the smart label.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer in view of Abbas (US 20100083453 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mauer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Mauer is silent regarding the outer fabric is configured for sterile cleaning.
However, Abbas teaches a cleaning mitt (abstract; “to clean an appropriate surface”) wherein the outer fabric is configured for sterile cleaning (paragraph 0043; “supplied in a sterile state” serves as being for sterile cleaning). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Mauer by having the outer fabric configured for sterile cleaning, as taught by Abbas, for the purpose of the cleaning mitt being suited for use in medical applications (Abbas, paragraph 0043).
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze et al (US 7240391 B1) in view Mckenzie (US 20200000306 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boze discloses a cleaning mitt (figures 1-9), the cleaning mitt comprising: an outer fabric and an inner fabric (Col. 1, lines 45-51; “liner glove and wipe may also be integral” wherein liner glove serves as inner fabric and wipe serves as outer fabric, the outer fabric being configured for cleaning surfaces (Col. 1, lines 30-39); a receiving opening 2 (figure 6) configured for receiving a hand of a user; a seamless folding edge 6 (figure 6; as seen in figure 5, material is folded over at 10 forming a seamless folding edge) arranged opposite the receiving opening.
Boze discloses two closed corners on either side of the seamless folding edge but is silent regarding the corners having openings. However, Mckenzie teaches a cleaning mitt having an opening at a closed corner (paragraph 0031). Therefore, since Boze has two closed corners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Boze by providing each corner with an opening, as taught by Mckenzie, for the purpose of allowing air and water to pass through the closed corners (Mckenzie paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Boze discloses wherein the outer fabric is arranged on each of two sides of the cleaning mitt, and wherein the outer fabric of each side is configured to clean at least 100 square feet of a flat stainless steel surface (at least capable of being used in the claimed manner).
Regarding claim 10, Boze discloses wherein the outer fabric comprises a single uninterrupted body of fabric (Col. 4, lines 40-60) but is silent regarding the inner fabric also comprising a single uninterrupted body of fabric. However, since Boze teaches forming mitt members from a single uninterrupted body of fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Boze by making both the inner and outer fabrics from a single uninterrupted body of fabric, as taught by Boze, for the purpose of a using known method and technique for making a mitt/glove shaped structure.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze in view of Mckenzie and further in view of Jones, III (US 20060014462 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Boze/Mckenzie discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Boze/Mckenzie discloses the outer fabric comprising microfiber but is silent regarding the outer having a cleaning efficacy rated to provide a 4-log reduction on a surface with a single wipe during a cleaning operation.
However, Jones, III teaches microfiber used to clean, wherein it is set forth that efficacy is a result effective variable, wherein deep groove microfibers are stratified on the outermost layer to maximize contact with the surface to be cleaned, such that this maximizes cleaning efficacy (paragraph 0016). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Boze/Mckenzie by maximizing cleaning efficacy such that the cleaning efficacy is rated to provide a 4-log reduction on a surface with a single wipe during a cleaning operation since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claim 13, Boze/Mckenzie discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Boze/Mckenzie is silent regarding the cleaning mitt is configured to be commercially laundered and reusable. However, Jones, III teaches a cleaning device configured to be commercially laundered and reusable (paragraph 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the device of Boze/McKenzie by making the cleaning mitt configured to be commercially laundered and reusable, as taught by Jones, III, for the purpose of the device being easily cleaned.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze, in view of Mckenzie and further in view of the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union Volume 4 EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use.
Regarding claim 3, Boze/Mckenzie discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Boze/Mckenzie is silent regarding the outer fabric is configured to clean a surface in compliance with European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (EU GMP) Annex 1 with a single wipe of the surface. However, the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union Volume 4 EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use sets forth the guidelines to produce such a product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Mauer, by having the outer fabric is configured to clean a surface in compliance with European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (EU GMP) Annex 1 with a single wipe of the surface, as taught by the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union Volume 4 EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use, for the purpose of the product being accepted as a sterile product.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze, in view of Mckenzie and further in view of Dixon (US 20180122273 A1).
Regarding claims 4-7, Boze/Mckenzie discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Boze/Mckenzie is silent regarding the mitt comprises a label affixed on the inner fabric of the article , and wherein the label includes identifying information uniquely identifying the article; wherein the identifying information includes one or more of an owner identity, a cleaning use case, and a lot identity; wherein the identifying information comprises one or more of a bar code or a quick response (QR) code; wherein the label further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing the identifying information.
Dixon teaches an article of clothing in the same field of endeavor as a cleaning mitt, wherein the article comprises a label 11 affixed on the inner fabric of the article , and wherein the label includes identifying information uniquely identifying the article (paragraph 0008; “wear history”; paragraph 0039, 0045, 0048, 0057, 0059); wherein the identifying information includes one or more of an owner identity, a cleaning use case, and a lot identity (paragraph 0039, 0045, 0048, 0057, 0059); wherein the identifying information comprises one or more of a bar code or a quick response (QR) code (paragraph 0006); wherein the label further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing the identifying information (paragraph 0006 and 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Boze/Mckenzie by providing the mitt with a label affixed on the inner fabric of the article , and wherein the label includes identifying information uniquely identifying the article; wherein the identifying information includes one or more of an owner identity, a cleaning use case, and a lot identity; wherein the identifying information comprises one or more of a bar code or a quick response (QR) code; wherein the label further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing the identifying information, as taught by Dixon, for the purpose of allowing sight impaired or blind persons to tactually, or via an electronic interpretation device, e.g., personal computer, a smartphone, computer tablet, magnetic stripe reader, NFC communicator, RFID reader, or Bluetooth device, comprehend the identification information of the smart label.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze et al (US 7240391 B1) in view Mckenzie and further in view of Klingbeil (US 20120260447 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Boze discloses wherein mitt (which comprises an inner and outer fabric as set forth above and modified above to have inner and outer fabrics constructed in the same way) comprises longitudinal edges, wherein the outer fabric are folded at the seamless edge such that each longitudinal edge is folded onto itself, and wherein each longitudinal edge that is folded onto itself is sewn (figure 5 shows unfolded and figure 6 folded; sowing shown at 7). While Boze does not specific that both the inner and outer fabrics are folded, Klingbeil teaches inner and outer fabrics (seen by differing cross-hatching in figure 4) overlap each other and are both folded over together at seams (figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Boze/Mckenzie to have both the inner and outer fabric folded at the edges, as taught by Klingbeil, for the purpose of forming a seam of both layers simultaneously.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze et al (US 7240391 B1) in view Mckenzie, further in view of Klingbeil, further in view of Jones (US 20150335222 A1) and further in view of Namsaraeva (US 20120214013 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Boze/Mckenzie/Klingbeil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 10. Boze/Mckenzie/Klingbeil is silent regarding a binding band surrounding a periphery of the inner fabric and the outer fabric, the binding band comprising a non-linting textile.
However, Jones teaches a cleaning mitt using lint free materials (paragraph 0221). It would have been obvious to use lint free materials for the construction of any part of the cleaning mitt of Boze/Mckenzie/Klingbeil, as taught by Jones, for the purpose of preventing lint from contaminating the surface to be cleaned.
Namsaraeva teaches a binding band surrounding a periphery of stitched fabric (paragraph 0075; same field of endeavor of wearable items and further analogous for being reasonable pertinent to problem being solved pertaining to sown items to be worn). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the device as set forth as obvious above by providing a binding band surrounding a periphery of the fabrics (inner and outer fabric as made obvious above), for the purpose of covering up the fray at the edges and protecting the seam.
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to use lint free material for any part of the device, including the binding band, as taught by Jones, for the purpose of preventing lint from contaminating the surface to be cleaned.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze et al (US 7240391 B1) in view Mckenzie (US 20200000306 A1) and further in view of Vitucci-Schneider (US 20140259502 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Boze/Mckenzie discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Boze/Mckenzie is silent regarding the cleaning mitt is configured to withstand gamma-irradiation. However, Vitucci-Schneider teaches a cleaning device wherein the material of the device is configured to withstand gamma-irradiation (paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Boze/Mckenzie by having the cleaning mitt configured to withstand gamma-irradiation, as taught by Vitucci-Schneider, for the purpose of allowing the mitt to be sterilized using known methods.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boze et al (US 7240391 B1) in view Mckenzie (US 20200000306 A1) and further in view of Abbas (US 20100083453 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Boze/Mckenzie discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Boze/Mckenzie is silent regarding the outer fabric is configured for sterile cleaning.
However, Abbas teaches a cleaning mitt (abstract; “to cleans an appropriate surface”) wherein the outer fabric is configured for sterile cleaning (paragraph 0043; “supplied in a sterile state” serves as being for sterile cleaning). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Boze/Mckenzie by having the outer fabric configured for sterile cleaning, as taught by Abbas, for the purpose of the cleaning mitt being suited for use in medical applications (Abbas, paragraph 0043).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2180. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772