DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 8, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1-3 and 12-13 are amended, resulting in claims 1-19 pending for examination.
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 1-19 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 1 uses the terms “first yarn feed” and “second yarn feed”. The limitation is indefinite because a “yarn feed” typically refers to how the yarn moves from its source to the product, and thus references a process or apparatus. It is therefore unclear what structure a yarn feed provides to the final product. For the purposes of examination “first yarn feed” and “second yarn feed” will be interpreted as a first yarn and a second yarn, respectively.
Claims 12 and 19 also recite the limitations “first yarn feed” and “second yarn feed” and thus are indefinite for the reasons presented with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on claims 1 or 12, rejected above.
Claims 4-6 use the term “first yarn feed” and are indefinite for the reasons presented with respect to claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274).
With respect to claim 1, Wildeman teaches wipes having an arrangement of elements projecting in a predefined pattern across an active surface (paragraph [0002]) which may be attached to a support with or without a handle such as a mop head (paragraph [0005]). Wildeman further teaches that stitch bonding is a well-known technique for forming fabrics with a uniform surface covered with stitching yarns (paragraph [0004]) and is suitable for forming arrays of loops on a sheet cleaning element (paragraph [0006]). The substrate material may be a fleece (paragraph [0037]) and may include combinations of materials, such as an upper layer (support layer) and a lower layer (paragraph [0070]).
Wildeman is silent as to the wipe having a first loop collection and a second loop collection wherein the second loop collection has an average pile height greater than the first loop collection.
Nordin teaches a cleaning cloth for cleaning dirty surfaces and a mop on which said cleaning cloth is arranged (col. 1, lines 5-7). The cleaning cloth is characterized by a base fabric having on one side longer loops of yarn with a normal fiber fineness (second loop collection) and shorter loops of microfilament yarn having great dirt and absorption ability (first loop collection) (col. 1, lines 47-55). The ratio between shorter loops (first loop collection) and longer loops (second loop collection) on one side of the cloth should be such that 75%-25%, preferably 50% are made up by the shorter loops (first loop collection) (col. 1, lines 65-67). When the side of the cloth having different lengths of loops is pulled over a surface, the longer loops (second loop collection) will have a brushing or sweeping effect and the shorter loops (first loop collection) will have an absorbing and accumulating effect on dust particles and humidity on the wiped surface (col. 3, lines 5-10).
The coverage area of the loops range of Nordin substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Morin, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Wildeman and Nordin teach wipes with piles used as cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the loops of Wildeman to comprise longer loops (second loop collection) and shorter loops (first loop collection) as described by Nordin in order to provide a wipe that brushes and sweeps as well as absorbs dust and humidity.
With respect to claim 4, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Wildeman further teaches zones of different loop character may be arranged in a generally zigzag configuration (paragraph [0065]). With respect to whether the longer loops (second loop collection) or shorter loops (first loop collection) are stitched in the zigzag, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the longer loops (second loop collection) and shorter loops (first loop collection) in the zigzag in order to determine which provides the desired cleaning properties. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claims 5-6, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Nordin further teaches the ratio between shorter loops (first yarn) and longer loops (second yarn) on one side of the cloth should be such that 75%-25%, preferably 50% are made up by the shorter loops (first yarn) (col. 1, lines 65-67).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takabayashi (US 2002/0065012).
With respect to claim 2, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the fleece having a mass per unit area of 100 to 400 grams per square meter.
Takabayashi teaches a cleaning sheet that has excellent cleaning performance (paragraph [0009]-[0010]). The cleaning area of the cleaning sheet comprises a first sheet disposed on a second sheet, where the second sheet supports the first sheet (paragraph [0025]). The first sheet is an airlaid fabric (paragraph [0026]) which has a basis weight of 10-500 gsm, particularly 20-200 gsm (paragraph [0032]). A basis weight of more than 500 gsm is costly and unfit for high-speed production and a basis weight of less than 10 gsm is difficult to make and tends to have difficulty raking dust (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the basis weight of the fleece of Wildeman in view of Nordin to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a fleece that is cheaper, easy to make, suitable for high-speed production, and allows dust collection. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laun (US 6087279).
With respect to claim 3, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the fleece being sandwiched between support layer substrates.
Laun teaches a surface-area material for used for cleaning (col. 1, lines 24-26) that may be used with a long-handled scrubbers (col. 1, lines 51-53). The surface-area material may have at least two non-woven materials reinforced with a support material (col. 1, lines 60-65). The support materials can be used to reinforce the products, to improve their resistance to tearing, and to improve shape stability during use (col. 1, lines 66 – col. 2, line 1). The support materials may overlay the non-woven material (col. 2, lines 1-4).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teach cleaning fabrics suitable for use with long-handled scrubbers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wipe of Wildeman in view of Nordin to include a support layer overlaying the fleece in order to provide reinforcement to the wipe, improve the resistance to tearing, and to improve shape stability. With respect to the orientation of the layers, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the different possible orientations of the fleece, upper layer, and support layer, including the fleece being sandwiched between the upper layer and the support layer, in order to determine which orientation provides the desired strength and cleaning ability.
Claim(s) 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morin (US 2004/0102119).
With respect to claim 7, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the shorter loops (first loop collection) having a height in the range of about 1.5-3.5 mm.
Morin teaches textiles having loops extending outwardly from a base material (paragraph [0002]) and that loop textiles have many uses such as for cleaning purposes. The base substrate 100 may be knit, woven, non-woven, or any other similar web-like materials (paragraph [0010]). The base substrate 100 may include receiving loops 210, 220 and stiff loops 310, 320 (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0013]). The receiving loops and the stiff loops were added by knitting the filaments into the substrate and forming the loops (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). The height of the receiving loop 210, 220 is between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, particularly about 0.8 mm (paragraph [0011]). The height of the stiff loop 310, 320 is between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, particularly about 1 mm (paragraph [0013]).
The receiving loops 210, 210 (first loop collection) height range of Morin substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 7. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Morin, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Morin teach loop pile fabrics for cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shorter loops (first loop collection) to have a height of between about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, because it is known in the art as a suitable height for a loop textile cleaning article, and would yield the predictable result of a loop textile suitable for cleaning and scrubbing surfaces. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claims 10-11, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having an average yarn density in the range of 2-5 times the average yarn density of the loops forming the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Morin teaches textiles having loops extending outwardly from a base material (paragraph [0002]) and that loop textiles have many uses such as for cleaning purposes. The base substrate 100 may be knit, woven, non-woven, or any other similar web-like materials (paragraph [0010]). The base substrate 100 may include receiving loops 210, 220 and stiff loops 310, 320 (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0013]). The height of the receiving loop 210, 220 is particularly about 0.8 mm (paragraph [0011]). The height of the stiff loop 310, 320 is particularly about 1 mm (paragraph [0013]). The yarn forming the stiff loops 310, 320 can be stiffer than the material of the receiving loops 210, 220 by at least about 10 denier per filament (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the yarn density of the longer loops (second loop collection) as compared to the shorter loops (first loop collection) to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide longer loops (second loop collection) with the necessary stiffness suitable for the cleaning article. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winterling (DE 102007023335)1.
With respect to claims 8-9, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having an average pile height at least 25-150% greater than the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Winterling teaches a wiping cloth and a wiping cover for a cleaning device which includes the wiping cloth (paragraph [0001]). The wiping cloth comprises at least two different pile fibers with different titers, and wherein the second pile fibers have a higher stiffness and a greater pile height than the first pile fibers (paragraph [0008]). Such a design, in particular the different pile height, achieves high cleaning performance and good absorption of liquids by the first pile fibers (paragraph [0009]). Because the second pile fibers are significantly taller than the first pile fibers, the surface to be cleaned is cleaned sufficiently well even with only slight pressure on the wiping cloth (paragraph [0010]) and the cleaning performance can be gradually adjusted to the degree of soiling of the surface to be cleaned (paragraph [0011]). The ratio of the pile height of the second pile fibers to the pile height of the first pile fibers is preferably 1.2 to 1.4 (20-40% greater), most preferably 1.3 (30% greater) (paragraph [0013]).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Winterling teach pile fabrics with two different pile heights for cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longer loops (second loop collection) of Wildeman in view of Nordin to have a height that is 20-40% greater, preferably 30% greater, than the shorter loops (second loop collection) in order to provide a cleaning pile fabric which provides good cleaning performance that can be gradually adjusted to the degree of soiling of the surface to be cleaned.
With respect to claim 10, Wildeman in view of Nordin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having a yarn density that is not less than 2 times the yarn density of the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Winterling teaches a wiping cloth and a wiping cover for a cleaning device which includes the wiping cloth (paragraph [0001]). The wiping cloth comprises at least two different pile fibers with different titers, and wherein the second pile fibers have a higher stiffness and a greater pile height than the first pile fibers (paragraph [0008]). Such a design, in particular the different pile height, achieves high cleaning performance and good absorption of liquids by the first pile fibers (paragraph [0009]). The ratio between the titer of the second pile fibers and the titer of the first pile fibers is preferably greater than 1000 (paragraph [0012]). This ratio achieves an excellent compromise between high cleaning performance of the first pile fibers and low friction of the second pile fibers (paragraph [0012]).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Winterling teach pile fabrics with two different pile heights for cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longer loops (second loop collection) of Wildeman in view of Nordin to have a density that is greater than 1000 times greater than the shorter loops (second loop collection) in order to provide a cleaning pile fabric which provides an excellent compromise between high cleaning performance of the shorter loops (first loop collection) and low friction of the longer loops (second loop collection).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) and Laun (US 6087279).
With respect to claim 12, Wildeman teaches wipes having an arrangement of elements projecting in a predefined pattern across an active surface (paragraph [0002]) which may be attached to a support with or without a handle such as a mop head (paragraph [0005]). Wildeman further teaches that stitch bonding is a well-known technique for forming fabrics with a uniform surface covered with stitching yarns (paragraph [0004]) and is suitable for forming arrays of loops on a sheet cleaning element (paragraph [0006]). The substrate material may be a polyester fleece (paragraph [0037]) and may include combinations of materials, such as an upper layer (support layer) and a lower layer (paragraph [0070]).
Wildeman is silent as to the wipe having a first loop collection and a second loop collection wherein the second loop collection has an average pile height greater than the first loop collection.
Nordin teaches a cleaning cloth for cleaning dirty surfaces and a mop on which said cleaning cloth is arranged (col. 1, lines 5-7). The cleaning cloth is characterized by a base fabric having on one side longer loops of yarn with a normal fiber fineness (second loop collection) and shorter loops of microfilament yarn having great dirt and absorption ability (first loop collection) (col. 1, lines 47-55). The ratio between shorter loops (first loop collection) and longer loops (second loop collection) on one side of the cloth should be such that 75%-25%, preferably 50% are made up by the shorter loops (first loop collection) (col. 1, lines 65-67). When the side of the cloth having different lengths of loops is pulled over a surface, the longer loops (second loop collection) will have a brushing or sweeping effect and the shorter loops (first loop collection) will have an absorbing and accumulating effect on dust particles and humidity on the wiped surface (col. 3, lines 5-10).
The coverage area of the loops range of Nordin substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 12. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Morin, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Wildeman and Nordin teach wipes with piles used as cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the loops of Wildeman to comprise longer loops (second loop collection) and shorter loops (first loop collection) as described by Nordin in order to provide a wipe that brushes and sweeps as well as absorbs dust and humidity.
Wildeman further teaches zones of different loop character may be arranged in a generally zigzag configuration (paragraph [0065]). With respect to whether the longer loops (second loop collection) or shorter loops (first loop collection) are stitched in the zigzag, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the longer loops (second loop collection) and shorter loops (first loop collection) in the zigzag in order to determine which provides the desired cleaning properties. See MPEP 2143.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the fleece being sandwiched between support layer substrates.
Laun teaches a surface-area material for used for cleaning (col. 1, lines 24-26) that may be used with a long-handled scrubbers (col. 1, lines 51-53). The surface-area material may have at least two non-woven materials reinforced with a support material (col. 1, lines 60-65). The support materials can be used to reinforce the products, to improve their resistance to tearing, and to improve shape stability during use (col. 1, lines 66 – col. 2, line 1). The support materials may overlay the non-woven material (col. 2, lines 1-4).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teach cleaning fabrics suitable for use with long-handled scrubbers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wipe of Wildeman in view of Nordin to include a support layer overlaying the fleece in order to provide reinforcement to the wipe, improve the resistance to tearing, and to improve shape stability. With respect to the orientation of the layers, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the different possible orientations of the fleece, upper layer, and support layer, including the fleece being sandwiched between the upper layer and the support layer, in order to determine which orientation provides the desired strength and cleaning ability.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) and Laun (US 6087279) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Takabayashi (US 2002/0065012).
With respect to claim 13, Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun is silent as to the fleece having a mass per unit area of 100 to 400 grams per square meter.
Takabayashi teaches a cleaning sheet that has excellent cleaning performance (paragraph [0009]-[0010]). The cleaning area of the cleaning sheet comprises a first sheet disposed on a second sheet, where the second sheet supports the first sheet (paragraph [0025]). The first sheet is an airlaid fabric (paragraph [0026]) which has a basis weight of 10-500 gsm, particularly 20-200 gsm (paragraph [0032]). A basis weight of more than 500 gsm is costly and unfit for high-speed production and a basis weight of less than 10 gsm is difficult to make and tends to have difficulty raking dust (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the basis weight of the fleece of Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a fleece that is cheaper, easy to make, suitable for high-speed production, and allows dust collection. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) and Laun (US 6087279) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Morin (US 2004/0102119).
With respect to claim 14, Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun is silent as to the shorter loops (first loop collection) having a height in the range of about 1.5-3.5 mm.
Morin teaches textiles having loops extending outwardly from a base material (paragraph [0002]) and that loop textiles have many uses such as for cleaning purposes. The base substrate 100 may be knit, woven, non-woven, or any other similar web-like materials (paragraph [0010]). The base substrate 100 may include receiving loops 210, 220 and stiff loops 310, 320 (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0013]). The receiving loops and the stiff loops were added by knitting the filaments into the substrate and forming the loops (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). The height of the receiving loop 210, 220 is between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, particularly about 0.8 mm (paragraph [0011]). The height of the stiff loop 310, 320 is between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, particularly about 1 mm (paragraph [0013]).
The receiving loops 210, 210 (first loop collection) height range of Morin substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 7. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Morin, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun and Morin teach loop pile fabrics for cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shorter loops (first loop collection) to have a height of between about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, because it is known in the art as a suitable height for a loop textile cleaning article, and would yield the predictable result of a loop textile suitable for cleaning and scrubbing surfaces. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claims 17-18, Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having an average yarn density in the range of 2-5 times the average yarn density of the loops forming the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Morin teaches textiles having loops extending outwardly from a base material (paragraph [0002]) and that loop textiles have many uses such as for cleaning purposes. The base substrate 100 may be knit, woven, non-woven, or any other similar web-like materials (paragraph [0010]). The base substrate 100 may include receiving loops 210, 220 and stiff loops 310, 320 (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0013]). The height of the receiving loop 210, 220 is particularly about 0.8 mm (paragraph [0011]). The height of the stiff loop 310, 320 is particularly about 1 mm (paragraph [0013]). The yarn forming the stiff loops 310, 320 can be stiffer than the material of the receiving loops 210, 220 by at least about 10 denier per filament (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the yarn density of the longer loops (second loop collection) as compared to the shorter loops (first loop collection) to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide longer loops (second loop collection) with the necessary stiffness suitable for the cleaning article. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274) and Laun (US 6087279) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Winterling (DE 102007023335)2.
With respect to claims 15-16, Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having an average pile height at least 50%, preferably 25-150%, greater than the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Winterling teaches a wiping cloth and a wiping cover for a cleaning device which includes the wiping cloth (paragraph [0001]). The wiping cloth comprises at least two different pile fibers with different titers, and wherein the second pile fibers have a higher stiffness and a greater pile height than the first pile fibers (paragraph [0008]). Such a design, in particular the different pile height, achieves high cleaning performance and good absorption of liquids by the first pile fibers (paragraph [0009]). Because the second pile fibers are significantly taller than the first pile fibers, the surface to be cleaned is cleaned sufficiently well even with only slight pressure on the wiping cloth (paragraph [0010]) and the cleaning performance can be gradually adjusted to the degree of soiling of the surface to be cleaned (paragraph [0011]). The ratio of the pile height of the second pile fibers to the pile height of the first pile fibers is preferably 1.2 to 1.4 (20-40% greater), most preferably 1.3 (30% greater) (paragraph [0013]).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun and Winterling teach pile fabrics with two different pile heights for cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longer loops (second loop collection) of Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun to have a height that is 20-40% greater, preferably 30% greater, than the shorter loops (second loop collection) in order to provide a cleaning pile fabric which provides good cleaning performance that can be gradually adjusted to the degree of soiling of the surface to be cleaned.
With respect to claim 17, Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having a yarn density that is not less than 2 times the yarn density of the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Winterling teaches a wiping cloth and a wiping cover for a cleaning device which includes the wiping cloth (paragraph [0001]). The wiping cloth comprises at least two different pile fibers with different titers, and wherein the second pile fibers have a higher stiffness and a greater pile height than the first pile fibers (paragraph [0008]). Such a design, in particular the different pile height, achieves high cleaning performance and good absorption of liquids by the first pile fibers (paragraph [0009]). The ratio between the titer of the second pile fibers and the titer of the first pile fibers is preferably greater than 1000 (paragraph [0012]). This ratio achieves an excellent compromise between high cleaning performance of the first pile fibers and low friction of the second pile fibers (paragraph [0012]).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun and Winterling teach pile fabrics with two different pile heights for cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longer loops (second loop collection) of Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun to have a density that is greater than 1000 times greater than the shorter loops (second loop collection) in order to provide a cleaning pile fabric which provides an excellent compromise between high cleaning performance of the shorter loops (first loop collection) and low friction of the longer loops (second loop collection).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) in view of Nordin (US 5804274), Laun (US 6087279), Takabayashi (US 2002/0065012), Morin (US 2004/0102119), and Winterling (DE 102007023335)3.
With respect to claim 19, Wildeman teaches wipes having an arrangement of elements projecting in a predefined pattern across an active surface (paragraph [0002]) which may be attached to a support with or without a handle such as a mop head (paragraph [0005]). Wildeman further teaches that stitch bonding is a well-known technique for forming fabrics with a uniform surface covered with stitching yarns (paragraph [0004]) and is suitable for forming arrays of loops on a sheet cleaning element (paragraph [0006]). The substrate material may be a polyester fleece (paragraph [0037]) and may include combinations of materials, such as an upper layer (support layer) and a lower layer (paragraph [0070]).
Wildeman is silent as to the wipe having a first loop collection and a second loop collection wherein the second loop collection has an average pile height greater than the first loop collection.
Nordin teaches a cleaning cloth for cleaning dirty surfaces and a mop on which said cleaning cloth is arranged (col. 1, lines 5-7). The cleaning cloth is characterized by a base fabric having on one side longer loops of yarn with a normal fiber fineness (second loop collection) and shorter loops of microfilament yarn having great dirt and absorption ability (first loop collection) (col. 1, lines 47-55). The ratio between shorter loops (first loop collection) and longer loops (second loop collection) on one side of the cloth should be such that 75%-25%, preferably 50% are made up by the shorter loops (first loop collection) (col. 1, lines 65-67). When the side of the cloth having different lengths of loops is pulled over a surface, the longer loops (second loop collection) will have a brushing or sweeping effect and the shorter loops (first loop collection) will have an absorbing and accumulating effect on dust particles and humidity on the wiped surface (col. 3, lines 5-10).
The coverage area of the loops range of Nordin substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 12. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Morin, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Wildeman and Nordin teach wipes with piles used as cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the loops of Wildeman to comprise longer loops (second loop collection) and shorter loops (first loop collection) as described by Nordin in order to provide a wipe that brushes and sweeps as well as absorbs dust and humidity.
Wildeman further teaches zones of different loop character may be arranged in a generally zigzag configuration (paragraph [0065]). With respect to whether the longer loops (second loop collection) or shorter loops (first loop collection) are stitched in the zigzag, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the longer loops (second loop collection) and shorter loops (first loop collection) in the zigzag in order to determine which provides the desired cleaning properties. See MPEP 2143.
Wildeman in view of Nordin is silent as to the fleece being sandwiched between support layer substrates.
Laun teaches a surface-area material for used for cleaning (col. 1, lines 24-26) that may be used with a long-handled scrubbers (col. 1, lines 51-53). The surface-area material may have at least two non-woven materials reinforced with a support material (col. 1, lines 60-65). The support materials can be used to reinforce the products, to improve their resistance to tearing, and to improve shape stability during use (col. 1, lines 66 – col. 2, line 1). The support materials may overlay the non-woven material (col. 2, lines 1-4).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun teach cleaning fabrics suitable for use with long-handled scrubbers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wipe of Wildeman in view of Nordin to include a support layer overlaying the fleece in order to provide reinforcement to the wipe, improve the resistance to tearing, and to improve shape stability. With respect to the orientation of the layers, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the different possible orientations of the fleece, upper layer, and support layer, including the fleece being sandwiched between the upper layer and the support layer, in order to determine which orientation provides the desired strength and cleaning ability.
Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun is silent as to the fleece having a mass per unit area of 100 to 400 grams per square meter.
Takabayashi teaches a cleaning sheet that has excellent cleaning performance (paragraph [0009]-[0010]). The cleaning area of the cleaning sheet comprises a first sheet disposed on a second sheet, where the second sheet supports the first sheet (paragraph [0025]). The first sheet is an airlaid fabric (paragraph [0026]) which has a basis weight of 10-500 gsm, particularly 20-200 gsm (paragraph [0032]). A basis weight of more than 500 gsm is costly and unfit for high-speed production and a basis weight of less than 10 gsm is difficult to make and tends to have difficulty raking dust (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the basis weight of the fleece of Wildeman in view of Nordin and Laun to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a fleece that is cheaper, easy to make, suitable for high-speed production, and allows dust collection. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, and Takabayashi is silent as to the shorter loops (first loop collection) having a height in the range of about 1.5-3.5 mm.
Morin teaches textiles having loops extending outwardly from a base material (paragraph [0002]) and that loop textiles have many uses such as for cleaning purposes. The base substrate 100 may be knit, woven, non-woven, or any other similar web-like materials (paragraph [0010]). The base substrate 100 may include receiving loops 210, 220 and stiff loops 310, 320 (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0013]). The receiving loops and the stiff loops were added by knitting the filaments into the substrate and forming the loops (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). The height of the receiving loop 210, 220 is between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, particularly about 0.8 mm (paragraph [0011]). The height of the stiff loop 310, 320 is between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, particularly about 1 mm (paragraph [0013]).
The receiving loops 210, 210 (first loop collection) height range of Morin substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 7. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Morin, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, and Takabayashi and Morin teach loop pile fabrics for cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shorter loops (first loop collection) to have a height of between about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm, preferably between about 0.3 mm and about 3 mm, because it is known in the art as a suitable height for a loop textile cleaning article, and would yield the predictable result of a loop textile suitable for cleaning and scrubbing surfaces. See MPEP 2143.
Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, Takabayashi, and Morin is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having an average pile height at least 50% greater than the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Winterling teaches a wiping cloth and a wiping cover for a cleaning device which includes the wiping cloth (paragraph [0001]). The wiping cloth comprises at least two different pile fibers with different titers, and wherein the second pile fibers have a higher stiffness and a greater pile height than the first pile fibers (paragraph [0008]). Such a design, in particular the different pile height, achieves high cleaning performance and good absorption of liquids by the first pile fibers (paragraph [0009]). Because the second pile fibers are significantly taller than the first pile fibers, the surface to be cleaned is cleaned sufficiently well even with only slight pressure on the wiping cloth (paragraph [0010]) and the cleaning performance can be gradually adjusted to the degree of soiling of the surface to be cleaned (paragraph [0011]). The ratio of the pile height of the second pile fibers to the pile height of the first pile fibers is preferably 1.2 to 1.4 (20-40% greater), most preferably 1.3 (30% greater) (paragraph [0013]).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, Takabayashi, and Morin and Winterling teach pile fabrics with two different pile heights for cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longer loops (second loop collection) of Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, Takabayashi, and Morin to have a height that is 20-40% greater, preferably 30% greater, than the shorter loops (second loop collection) in order to provide a cleaning pile fabric which provides good cleaning performance that can be gradually adjusted to the degree of soiling of the surface to be cleaned.
Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, Takabayashi, and Morin is silent as to the longer loops (second loop collection) having a yarn density that is not less than 2 times the yarn density of the shorter loops (first loop collection).
Winterling teaches a wiping cloth and a wiping cover for a cleaning device which includes the wiping cloth (paragraph [0001]). The wiping cloth comprises at least two different pile fibers with different titers, and wherein the second pile fibers have a higher stiffness and a greater pile height than the first pile fibers (paragraph [0008]). Such a design, in particular the different pile height, achieves high cleaning performance and good absorption of liquids by the first pile fibers (paragraph [0009]). The ratio between the titer of the second pile fibers and the titer of the first pile fibers is preferably greater than 1000 (paragraph [0012]). This ratio achieves an excellent compromise between high cleaning performance of the first pile fibers and low friction of the second pile fibers (paragraph [0012]).
Since both Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, Takabayashi, and Morin and Winterling teach pile fabrics with two different pile heights for cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longer loops (second loop collection) of Wildeman in view of Nordin, Laun, Takabayashi, and Morin to have a density that is greater than 1000 times greater than the shorter loops (second loop collection) in order to provide a cleaning pile fabric which provides an excellent compromise between high cleaning performance of the shorter loops (first loop collection) and low friction of the longer loops (second loop collection).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
On page 6 of the response Applicant submits that the terms “first yarn feed” and “second yarn feed” are used consistently in the specification and refer to the yarns that are fed to the stitch-bonding process and which are constituents of the final product.
These arguments are not convincing. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition in the specification. See MPEP 2111.01. However, it is important to note that any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention”. See MPEP 2111.01(IV)(A).
In the instant case, the ordinary artisan would recognize a yarn feed as being the mechanism or accessory used to deliver yarn, not the yarn itself. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The instant specification does not clearly redefine a yarn feed from its commonly accepted meaning to refer to a yarn. Amending “first yarn feed” and “second yarn feed” to read –first yarn
The remaining rejections of the claims 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed June 8, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that there is a typographical error in the PGPub of the Wildeman reference.
The typographical error has been corrected in the rejection headings above and an updated References Cited form has been provided herewith as requested. Wildeman (US 2008/0280094) is the correct reference, as identified by Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the response filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that Nordin uses a woven or knit structure as opposed to a stitch-bonded construction, and there is no teaching or suggestion on how to produce the claimed stitch bonded construction with distinct loop collections of different heights in the stitching zones.
These arguments are not convincing. It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference … rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145(III).
In the instant case the test for obvious therefore is not how the teachings of Nordin would be incorporated into the stitch-bonded structure of Wildeman, but rather what the combined teachings of Wildeman in view of Nordin suggests to one of ordinary skill. As presented in the rejection of claim 1 above and previously, since both Wildeman and Nordin teach wipes with piles used as cleaning articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the loops of Wildeman to comprise longer loops (second loop collection) and shorter loops (first loop collection) as described by Nordin in order to provide a wipe that brushes and sweeps as well as absorbs dust and humidity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Machine translation used as reference
2 Machine translation used as reference
3 Machine translation used as reference
Prosecution Insights