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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such as “The present invention relates” (see line 1) should not be present therein.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 10, on line 3, it appears “position on a body surface” should be “positioned on a bottom surface” in order for this language to be consistent with the specification and other claims (see, for example, claim 19, line 5 and paragraph 0029, lines 1-2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peltz et al. (U.S. Patent 10, 351,808, hereinafter Peltz).
In regard to claim 1, the Peltz reference discloses an adhesive stain-removing patch device comprising:
a body 14 (see Figure 15) impregnated with a compound 12;
an adhesive (securing the edges of element 14 to the edges of element 14, see column 11, lines 16-21); and
a backing sheet 16.
In regard to claim 3, the compound is comprised of a detergent (see column 5, lines 57-59).
In regard to claim 4, the compound is comprised of a stain-removing compound (i.e., detergent is considered a stain-removing compound and the Peltz reference discloses the compound as a stain and soil pretreatment device; i.e., see column 2, line 41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltz.
In regard to claim 2, although the Peltz reference does not disclose the backing sheet is comprised of wax paper, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the backing sheet can be made from any suitable material, including wax paper, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not disclosed wax paper is critical to the overall operation of the device, indicating simply the backing sheet is “preferably” made from a wax-paper material (see paragraph 0030, lines 1-2) and the Peltz reference does not limit the material which can be used to make the backing sheet (see column 5, line 24 wherein it is disclosed the backing sheet is “preferably” polyethylene film).
In regard to claims 5-7, the body 14 in the Peltz device is made from a water-soluble material (see column 4, lines 43-45). Although the Peltz reference does not disclose the body is further comprised of transparent gelatinous material, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the body can be made from any suitable water-soluble material, including a transparent gelatinous material, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not disclosed the water-soluble body being formed from transparent gelatinous material is critical to the overall operation of the device, indicating simply the body is “preferably” made from a transparent gelatinous material (see paragraph 000027) and the Peltz reference does not limit the material which can be used to make the body (see column 4, lines 47-63 wherein the Pletz reference discloses the body 14 may be “preferably” made from any one of a number of different materials).
In regard to claim 8, although the Peltz reference does not disclose the adhesive is water-soluble, the reference does disclose the body 14 is made from a water-soluble material in order to enable the body to harmlessly dissipate into the wash water during laundering (see column 9, lines 24-26). Since the adhesive which adheres the backing sheet to the body is in contact with the body, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the adhesive can also be water-soluble in order to enable any residual adhesive on the body to harmlessly dissipate (along with the body) into the wash water during laundering.
In regard to claim 9, although the Peltz reference does not disclose the body is of a triangular shape, the reference does disclose the body may be any one of a number of shapes (see column 7, lines 20-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the body in the Peltz device can be of a triangular shape without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not disclosed the particular shape of the device is critical to the overall operation of the device (as evidenced by the Applicant disclosing the body may be of any shape known in the art; see paragraph 0026, lines 6-9) and the Peltz reference does not limit the shape of the body.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltz in view of Geeraert et al. (U.S. Patent 9,758,286, hereinafter Geeraert).
In regard to claims 10, 12 and 13, as discussed above the Peltz reference discloses an adhesive stain-removing patch device comprised of a body impregnated with a detergent/stain removing compound, an adhesive and a backing sheet as claimed. Although the Peltz reference does not disclose the use of a storage box, attention is directed to the Geeraet et al. reference, which discloses another detergent dispensing package 17 wherein a plurality of packages 17 are stored in a storage box (see Figures 1 and 4) in order to enable a user to conveniently store unused detergent packages. The reference further discloses detergent pouches are typically stored in rigid box (see column 1, lines 17-20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made a plurality of the detergent patches disclosed in the Peltz reference can be stored in a storage box in order to enable a user to conveniently store unused detergent patches.
In regard to claims 11 and 14-17, as discussed in detail above, the Peltz reference renders the claimed structure obvious.
In regard to claim 18, the body 14 resembles an object.
In regard to claim 19, the Peltz reference discloses a method of using an adhesive stain-removing patch comprising the steps of:
proving an adhesive stain removing patch wherein the patch, as discussed above, can be structured as claimed;
removing the body from the backing sheet;
attaching the body to a clothing over a stain on the clothing; and
washing the clothing in a washing machine (see column 2, lines 40-51 and column 4, lines 47-49).
In regard to claim 20, as discussed above, the compound is a detergent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Kamiya et al. reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of an adhesive patch having a water-soluble body and the Hortel et al. reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a sheet having a detergent impregnated therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
1/28/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754