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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 and 8/14/2024 being considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,860. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below, the claims are obvious of each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,035,860 Claim 1
1. (New) A cleaning article for cleaning a target surface, said cleaning article comprising:
a nonwoven sheet having an inwardly oriented face and an outwardly oriented face opposed thereto;
a hydrophilic gather strip element comprising a first layer wherein said first layer is joined to said inwardly oriented face at two outboard elongate bonds;
at least one outward layer superimposed on gather strip element and joined to said gather strip element by an elongate bond inboard of said two outboard elongate bonds; and
two attachment stripes disposed on said outwardly oriented face;
wherein said first layer and said outward layer both comprise strips extending in a direction away from said elongate bond;
wherein said cleaning article is free of tow fibers and free of attachment sleeves.
1. A cleaning article for cleaning a target surface, said cleaning article comprising: an impermeable sheet devoid of strips; and a hydrophilic gather strip element joined to said sheet at an elongate common bond, said gather strip element comprising a first layer proximate to said sheet and at least one outward layer superimposed on said first layer and disposed outwardly thereof, a plurality of said first layer and said at least one outward layer having strips, wherein each said layer of said plurality of layers is joined to said sheet by said elongate common bond, at least one said layer of said plurality of layers being joined to said sheet by a secondary bond not coincident with and spaced apart from said common bond and at least one said layer of said plurality of layers not being joined to said sheet by said secondary bond, said cleaning article being free of tow fibers and free of attachment sleeves.
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 21-40 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 21 recites the limitation “wherein said cleaning article is free of tow fibers and free of attachment sleeves.” When looking to the specification, Paragraph 64 discusses “The tow fibers may be synthetic. As used herein “bundle fibers” and/or “tow” refer to fibers comprising synthetic polymers including polyester, polypropylene, polyethylene, bio-derived polymers such as polylactic acid, bio-polyethylene, bio-polyester and the like. Tow fibers also include fibers from natural sources such as cellulose, cellulose acetate, flax, hemp, jute and mixtures thereof manufactured wherein the individual fibers are relatively long strands manufactured in bundles. The bundle fibers may be defined as any fibers having distinct end points and at least about 1 cm in length. The tow fibers may extend continuously and in a substantially transverse direction, between the transverse edges of the article 10.” This appears to be a list of materials in which the nonwoven sheet can not be made of. This is opposite than the commonly known definition of :
PNG
media_image1.png
140
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For Examination purposes, the claim is to use the definition as provided in the specification.
Regarding the attachment sleeve, it to me assumed the attachment sleeve is a structure similar to that shown in US 8,578,564, as discussed in paragraph 80 of the instant application.
Claims 22-40 are rejected based on dependency.
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 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20100229317) in view of Erdman (US 2007/0074365)
Regarding claim 21 (as best understood), Tsuchiya discloses a cleaning article for cleaning a target surface, said cleaning article comprising:
a nonwoven sheet (Item 112) having an inwardly oriented face and an outwardly oriented face opposed thereto;
a hydrophilic gather strip element (Items 111) comprising a first layer (Item 111a)wherein said first layer is joined to said inwardly oriented face at two outboard elongate bonds (Items 114
at least one outward layer (Item 111b) superimposed on gather strip element and joined to said gather strip element by an elongate bond inboard of said two outboard elongate bonds (Item 113); and
wherein said first layer and said outward layer both comprise strips extending in a direction away from said elongate bond;
wherein said cleaning article is free of tow fibers and free of attachment sleeves.
Tsuchiya fails to explicitly disclose two attachment stripes disposed on said outwardly oriented face.
Erdman teaches a cleaning article wherein two attachment stripes disposed on said outwardly oriented face (Item 345 Paragraph 58) (along with a plurality of elongated bonds shown at 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the attachment sleeve of Tsuchiya for the hook and loop system of Erdman. Both are known ways of connecting a cleaning article to a handle mechanism. Leading one of ordinary skill in the art to the predictable result of the pad staying on the mop. The hook and loop of Erdman is known for being quick and easy for attaching and detaching cleaning articles.
Regarding claim 29, Tsuchiya in view of Erdman disclose the cleaning article according to Claim 21, wherein said elongate bond is symmetrically disposed between said outboard elongate bonds (Tsuchiya Figure 4 and the bonds for the attachment means in Figure 2 of Erdman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights