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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an uncoated nonwoven path” in line 6. The limitation fails to find support in the specification. Applicant is advised to provide support for the limitation or to cancel the limitation as it constitutes new matter. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “an uncoated nonwoven pad”.
Claims 2 – 11 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 1.
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 – 2, 6 – 8 and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Jaszenovics et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,275,276 B2).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Jaszenovics teaches a cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) comprising: a fitment (fitment, 20; Fig. 4); a nonwoven pad (Col. 6, lines 35 – 37; Fig. 4); a scrubbiness coating applied to the nonwoven pad (Col. 6, lines 5 – 9) to increase at least one of stiffness, rigidity or resistance to lateral movement of the coated nonwoven pad relative to an uncoated nonwoven path differing only by an application of the scrubbiness coating (Col. 6, lines 5 – 9 and lines 35 – 64; Jaszenovics teaches a substrate cleaning layer that has an abrasive surface provided by an aluminosilicate/latex binder on the surface to provide scrubbiness and a an absorbent layer, thus the scrubbiness coating applied to the nonwoven pad increases the stiffness in comparison to the uncoated pad).
Regarding Claim 2, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) wherein the nonwoven pad (Fig. 4) comprises at least a first nonwoven pad (21) and a second nonwoven pad (31) that are fixed together (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) wherein the scrubbiness coating is a polymer (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55).
Regarding Claim 7, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) wherein the scrubbiness coating is a polymer or copolymer emulsion (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55).
Regarding Claim 8, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) wherein the scrubbiness coating is a water insoluble polymer adhesive.
Regarding Independent Claim 12, Jaszenovics teaches a cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) comprising: a fitment (fitment, 20; Fig. 4); a nonwoven pad (Col. 6, lines 35 – 37; Fig. 4) formed of a plurality of fibers, wherein the nonwoven pad (Fig. 4) is connected to the fitment (20); and a scrubbiness coating applied to the nonwoven pad (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55) to adhere together at least a first fiber of the plurality of fibers (fibers of 21) and a second fiber of the plurality of fibers (fibers of 31; Col. 7, lines 39 – 57), at an intersection of the first fiber and the second fiber to form a globular area to increase a scrubbiness of the nonwoven pad.
Regarding Claim 13, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) wherein the nonwoven pad (Fig. 4) comprises at least a first nonwoven pad (31) and a second nonwoven pad (21) that are fixed together (Fig. 3); wherein the scrubbiness coating (Col. 6, lines 5 – 9) is applied to only an exterior cleaning surface of the first nonwoven pad (Col. 4, lines 61 – 32 and Col. 6, lines 14 – 27); and wherein an interior surface of the first nonwoven pad (3) is fixed to a first side of the second nonwoven pad (21) and a second side of the second nonwoven pad (21) is fixed to the fitment (20).
Regarding Claim 14, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) wherein the scrubbiness coating is selected from at least one of a polymer, copolymer, a water insoluble polymer adhesive, or combinations thereof (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55).
Regarding Claim 15, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) further comprising: a handle (claim 1; Fig. 1); and a gripping mechanism configured to be moveable within the handle (Col. 4, lines 44 – 46); wherein the gripping mechanism (engagement member; claim 1) is configured to selectively hold the fitment (20) relative to the handle (Col. 4, lines 44 – 46; claims 1 and 12).
Regarding Claim 16, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1) wherein the fitment (20) connected to the nonwoven pad (Fig. 4) is configured to be both gripped and un-gripped by the gripping mechanism (engagement member allows for the fitment to be connected or engaged and also released from the handle, claims 1 and 12).
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Jaszenovics teaches a method of forming a cleaning pad assembly (cleaning head, 21; Fig. 1; if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02) comprising: providing a fitment (fitment, 20; Fig. 4); providing a nonwoven pad (Col. 6, lines 35 – 37; Fig. 4) formed of a plurality of fibers (fibers of 21 and 31; Col. 7, lines 39 – 57); and applying a scrubbiness coating to the nonwoven pad (Col. 6, lines 5 – 9), forming a globular area at an intersection (Col. 6, lines 31 – 34; cited references incorporated into art of record describe polymerization which is forming a globular area) of at least a first fiber and a second fiber of the nonwoven pad (Col. 3, lines 44 – 47) by applying the scrubbiness coating to increase a scrubbiness of the nonwoven pad; and wherein the scrubbiness coating increases at least one of stiffness (Col. 6, lines 5 – 9), rigidity or resistance to lateral movement of the coated nonwoven pad relative to an uncoated nonwoven pad differing only by an application of the scrubbiness coating (Col. 6, lines 5 – 9 and lines 35 – 64; Jaszenovics teaches a substrate cleaning layer that has an abrasive surface provided by an aluminosilicate/latex binder on the surface to provide scrubbiness and a an absorbent layer, thus the scrubbiness coating applied to the nonwoven pad increases the stiffness in comparison to the uncoated pad).
Regarding Claim 18, Jaszenovics teaches the method, wherein providing the nonwoven pad (fig. 4) comprises providing at least a first nonwoven pad (31) and a second nonwoven pad (21) that are fixed together (Fig. 2), wherein an interior surface of the first nonwoven pad (31) is fixed to a first side of the second nonwoven pad (21) and a second side of the second nonwoven pad (21) is fixed to the fitment (20; Fig. 2); wherein applying the scrubbiness coating includes applying the scrubbiness coating to only an exterior surface of the first nonwoven pad (Col. 4, lines 61 – 32 and Col. 6, lines 14 – 27)
opposite the second side (21) of the second nonwoven pad (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Jaszenovics teaches the method further comprising: selecting the scrubbiness coating as at least one a polymer, a copolymer emulsion, a water insoluble polymer adhesive, or combinations thereof (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55).
Regarding Claim 20, Jaszenovics teaches the method, wherein applying the scrubbiness coating to the nonwoven pad includes spraying the scrubbiness coating onto a surface of the nonwoven pad (Col. 6, lines 14 – 27) to create a plurality of globular (Col. 6, lines 31 – 34; cited references incorporated into art of record describe polymerization which is forming a globular area – thus creating a plurality of globular).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaszenovics et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,275,276 B2) in view of Seals (U. S. Patent No. 6,611,986 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly of Claim 2, as discussed above.
Jaszenovics does not explicitly teach wherein the coating is applied to only the first nonwoven pad having an exterior cleaning surface.
Seals, however, teaches a cleaning pad assembly (Fig. 2B) comprising: a pad (Fig. 2B); a scrubbiness coating applied to the pad (Col. 3, lines 56 – 60); wherein the coating is applied to only the first pad (13; Col. 3, lines 56 – 60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Jaszenovics to further include the coating is applied to only the first pad, as taught by Seals, to provide an assembly that permits the pad to be gripped and easily separated from the gripper when disposed of.
Regarding Claim 4, Jaszenovics, as modified, teaches the cleaning pad assembly of Claim 3, as discussed above.
Jaszenovics does not explicitly teach the coating is applied to an exterior surface of the first nonwoven pad.
Seals, however, teaches the coating is applied to an exterior surface of the first pad (13; Col. 3, lines 56 – 60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Jaszenovics to further include the coating is applied to an exterior surface of the first nonwoven pad, as taught by Seals, to provide an assembly that permits the pad to be gripped and easily separated from the gripper when disposed of.
Regarding Claim 5, Jaszenovics, as modified, teaches the cleaning pad assembly of Claim 3, as discussed above.
Jaszenovics does not explicitly teach the fitment is connected to only the second nonwoven pad opposite the exterior cleaning surface of the first nonwoven pad.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Jaszenovics to further include the fitment is connected to only the second nonwoven pad opposite the exterior cleaning surface of the first nonwoven pad, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaszenovics et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,275,276 B2) in view of Niemoller et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0194004 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly of Claim 1, and a scrubbiness coating (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55).
Jaszenovics does not teach a polymer adhesive with a high glass transition.
Niemoller, however, teaches a polymer adhesive with a high glass transition (Paragraph [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Jaszenovics to further include a polymer adhesive with a high glass transition, as taught by Niemoller, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly of Claim 1, and a scrubbiness coating (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55).
Jaszenovics does not teach a styrene acrylic copolymer adhesive.
Niemoller, however, teaches a styrene acrylic copolymer adhesive (Paragraph [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Jaszenovics to further include a styrene acrylic copolymer adhesive, as taught by Niemoller, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 11, Jaszenovics teaches the cleaning pad assembly of Claim 1, and a scrubbiness coating (Col. 6, lines 35 – 55).
Jaszenovics does not teach a styrene acrylic copolymer adhesive and a dye.
Niemoller, however, teaches a styrene acrylic copolymer adhesive and a dye (Paragraphs [0042] and [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Jaszenovics to further include a styrene acrylic copolymer adhesive and a dye, as taught by Niemoller, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated September 4, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues Jaszenovics teaching a scrubbiness layer. Applicant has further amended the claims to further limit the claim. With the clarification provided, Jaszenovics teaches a scrubbiness coating applied in Column 6, lines 5 – 9 which increase a rigidity relative to an uncoated pad
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights