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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otaguro et al., JP 2000-239699 (see English translation) in view of Shimizu, JP 2019-157319 A (see English translation) and in view of Tanaka, JP 2016-189847 A (see English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Otaguro et al. disclose a cleaning wet wipe (see English translation of the Abstract) that is obtained by impregnating a base paper sheet with a chemical agent (cleaning liquid, see English translation of the Abstract), wherein the chemical agent has a hydrogen ion exponent of 8.0 to 9.0 (see English translation, pH range from 5 to 9) and contains 0.05% by mass to 0.15% by mass of polyoxyethylene alkyl ether (see English translation discussion of the surfactant, also 0.01% by weight to 10% by weight) and 5.00% by mass to 15.00% by mass of ethanol (see English translation discussion of the solvent, 0.01% to 10% by weight). Regarding claim 2, the chemical agent contains 8.00% by mass to 12.00% by mass of ethanol (in that the range is 0.01% to 10% by weight, see English translation discussion of the solvent). However, Otaguro et al. does not explicitly disclose that the chemical agent contains 8.00% by mass to 12.00% by mass of ethanol, rather teaches a range of 0.01% to 10% by weight which overlaps the range claimed by Otaguro et al. In addition, Otaguro et al. is silent as to whether the wipe comprises embossment blocks.
Further regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a cleaning wipe of paper (10; see English translation, see English translation of Abstract) comprising a plurality of diamond-shaped embossment blocks (groupings of embossments, see Figures 2 and 5a-5b), in each of which a plurality of convex embossments that are embossments having convexity in a first surface of the cleaning wet wipe (Figure 4, see English translation), and a plurality of concave embossments that are embossments having a convexity in a second surface of the cleaning wet wipe (opposite side, see Figures 4 and 5a-5b); and a non-embossment part where the embossments are not arranged (linear parts along/beside rows of blocks, Figures 2 and 5a-5b), between other ones of the embossment blocks which are adjacent (linear parts along/beside rows of blocks, Figures 2 and 5a-5b); wherein: the embossment blocks, which are a plurality of embossment blocks, are continuously arranged and form embossment block rows from a first side to a second side opposite to the first side (see Figures 2 and 5a-5b); wherein the embossment block rows, which are a plurality of embossment block rows, are continuously arranged from a third side perpendicularly intersection the first side to a fourth side opposite to the third side (Figures 2 and 5a-5b), the non-embossment part is provided at a proportion of not less than 25% and not more than 50% with respect to an area of the cleaning wet wipe (area Sa is non-embossed area, Sa is 10% to 35%, ratio of embossed region to non-embossed region is 2.5:1 to 3.5:1, see English translation), and the convex embossments are arranged such that at least one of the convex embossments is present on a straight line extended perpendicularly from an arbitrary point on the third side to the fourth side (see Figures 2 and 5a-5b), and the concave embossments are arranged such that at least one of the concave embossments is present on a line extended from an arbitrary point on the third side to the fourth side (Figures 4 and 5a-5b); an angle formed between a long axis direction of the embossments and a first direction that perpendicularly intersects the first side is not less than 5 degrees and not more than 45 degrees (at 45 degrees, Figure 5b). Shimizu teaches that the embossment blocks improve absorption of the cleaning paper (see English translation, Abstract and Background Art) and that sides of the embossments aid in scraping dirt from a surface (see English translation). Shimizu discusses that the shape of the embossments may be one from a list including triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, hexagon (see English translation). Shimizu does not disclose that the embossments have oval shapes and narrowed parts at centers thereof in a long axis direction.
Further regarding claim 1, Tanaka teach a cleaning wet wipe constructed of paper (Abstract) that comprises embossments (EM11, see Figures and English translation), the embossments are “gourd-shaped” that describes an oval shape with narrowed parts at centers thereof in a long axis direction (best shown in Figures 3 and 4a, also see English translation). Tanaka describes this shape as being advantageous so that when the paper wipe is folded, that the wipe maintains its surface strength and bulkiness (see English translation of Abstract and Description).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the % by mass of ethanol in the chemical agent of Otaguro et al. to be within the range of 8.00% by mass to 12.00% by mass of the chemical agent since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning wet wipe of Otaguro et al. so that it comprises diamond-shaped embossment blocks with a plurality of convex embossments in a first surface and form embossment block rows, and a plurality of concave embossments having a convexity in a second surface of the cleaning wet wipe, as taught by Shimizu, in order to improve the absorption abilities of the cleaning wipe and to also improve cleaning effectiveness as the edges of embossments scrape surfaces during cleaning. Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-embossment part range taught by Shimizu such that the non-embossment part is provided at a proportion of not less than 25% and not more than 50% with respect to an area of the cleaning wet wipe since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning wet wipe of Otaguro et al. and Shimizu so that the embossments have oval shapes and have narrowed parts at substantial centers thereof in a long axis direction, as taught by Tanaka, so that when the wipe is folded during use that it maintains its strength and bulkiness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant remarks that the applicant’s invention improves wiping performance of cleaning wet wipes, and that effective performance requires cooperation between the chemical composition of the impregnating agent and the embossment architecture of the wipe. Specifically, the applicant argues: “The cited references address different technical problems and design considerations, and do not provide the motivation for one skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.” The applicant submits that without improper hindsight reconstruction, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the chemical composition of Otaguro with the embossment structures of Shimizu and Tanaka in a single wet cleaning wipe.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Otaguro et al. teach a cleaning wipe of a nonwoven fabric impregnated with a cleaning liquid that removes metal oxides (rust) from surfaces during wiping or scrubbing (see English translation of Abstract). The cleaning sheets of Otaguro et al. do not have any surface structure such as embossments (Figures 1-3). Shimizu and Tanaka each describe nonwoven cleaning sheets having embossments or embossment blocks, the embossments are beneficial to the cleaning sheet wipe to improve absorption of the wipe and also that sides of the embossments aid in scraping dirt from a surface (see Shimizu English translation, Abstract and Background Art; Shimizu discuss a variety shapes used for each embossment) and the embossment shape taught by Tanaka is advantageous so that when the nonwoven wipe is folded, that the wipe maintains its surface strength and bulkiness (see Tanaka English translation of Abstract and Description).
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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights