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 .
Objections to the Missing Drawings
1. The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Specification
2. Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is missing a Brief Summary of the Invention; Brief Description of the Drawings; and Detailed Description of the Invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract is objected to since the word “comprising” should not be used.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. §112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The application is not provided with drawings nor does the specification provide reference numerals to correspond to drawings. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date would not be able to ascertain what would constitute the cleaning layer from the core layer since such has not been illustrated in the drawings. Moreover, the specification at page 11 mentions various embodiments but does not have figures to illustrate said embodiments.
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 1-10 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.
The application is not provided with drawings nor does the specification provide reference numerals to correspond to drawings. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date would not be able to ascertain what would constitute the cleaning layer from the core layer since such has not been illustrated in the drawings. Additionally, the term scratch strip is unclear since it not clear what or how show an element appears since it not depicted in the drawings. Moreover, the specification at page 11 mentions various embodiments but does not have figures to illustrate said embodiments.
Claims 3 and 7 recites the limitation "the optional cover layer" in lines 4 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
5. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (8,250,700) to Pung et al. (cited by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0220703) to Jung.
Regarding independent claim 1, Pung et al. teaches most of the elements of claim 1 including at least a cleaning layer (polymer) and a core layer (thermoplastic) (See Col. 6 lines 5-25 of Pung et al.), with both the cleaning layer (polymer) and the core layer (thermoplastic) contain cellulose and consist entirely of natural fibers and/or regenerated fibers (See Col. 4 lines 1-15 of Pung et al.),
a scratch strip (4) having increased abrasive properties compared to the remaining cleaning layer is arranged on or in the cleaning layer (See Col. 16 lines 10-20 of Pung et al.). Except, Pung et al. is silent regarding that the scratch strip (4) contains hemp and also consists entirely of natural fibers and/or regenerated fibers (See Col. 12l ines 1-12 of Pung et al.). However, Jung teaches an abrasive backing for a cloth or yarn (70). Jung teaches that hemp along with cotton and other materials are useful in woven layers together for a constituent fabric (See paragraph [0022] of Pung et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Pung et al. with Jung to include a hemp along with natural fibers in order to hold layers together for the cleaning implement taught in Pung et al.
Regarding claim 2, Pung et al. as modified with Jung by a cover layer (3) which also consists entirely of natural fibers and/or regenerated fibers and is arranged on the side of the core layer (thermoplastic) facing away from the cleaning layer cleaning layer (polymer) (See Col. 16 lines 1-10 of Pung et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Pung et al. as modified with Jung teaches that the core layer consists of 100 % cellulose (See Col. 4 lines 1-15 of Pung et al.) .
Regarding claim 8, Pung et al. teaches providing a at least a cleaning layer (polymer) and a core layer (thermoplastic) (See Col. 6 lines 5-25 of Pung et al.), with both the cleaning layer (polymer) and the core layer (thermoplastic) contain cellulose and consist entirely of natural fibers and/or regenerated fibers (See Col. 4 lines 1-15 of Pung et al.),
a scratch strip (4) having increased abrasive properties compared to the remaining cleaning layer is arranged on or in the cleaning layer (See Col. 16 lines 10-20 of Pung et al.). Except, Pung et al. is silent regarding that the scratch strip (4) contains hemp and also consists entirely of natural fibers and/or regenerated fibers (See Col. 12l ines 1-12 of Pung et al.). However, Jung teaches an abrasive backing for a cloth or yarn (70). Jung teaches that hemp along with cotton and other materials are useful in woven layers together for a constituent fabric (See paragraph [0022] of Pung et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Pung et al. with Jung to include a hemp along with natural fibers in order to hold layers together for the cleaning implement taught in Pung et al.
Regarding claim 9, Pung et al. as modified with Jung teaches that cleaning layer (polymer) and the core layer (thermoplastic) are connected to one another by treatment by means of electric shocks, by hydroentanglement, by needlepunching and/or by micro-entangling via ultrasonically generated movements of the fibers contained in the respective layers (See paragraph [0022] of Pung et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Pung et al. as modified with Jung teaches a head part (1) movably arranged on a handle (11), to which the multi-ply disposable floor sweeping cloth according to claim 1 is attached, so that the cleaning layer (polymer) is in contact with the floor when the floor is wiped and the scratch strip is not in contact with the floor when the floor is wiped (See Col. 12 lines 56-62 of Pung et al.).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723