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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to the apparatus, classified in 15/97.1
II. Claims 9-14, drawn to the method, classified in 134/6.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed be used to practice another and materially different process such as polishing.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Separate status in the art, a different field of search, separate classification.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Scarbrough on 10/20/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 9-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 9-14 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 9 is indefinite because “the associated faucet” lacks positive antecedent basis. It is unclear whether applicant meant “the associated faucet head”. Additionally, the claim fails to positively recite a cleaning step of cleaning the faucet. It is unclear whether the preamble should recite a method of cleaning the faucet head, as the entire faucet is not immersed in the cleaning solution. Claim 13 is indefinite because it states the sponge is attached to the bag with an adhesive. It is unclear whether the adhesive is the same or different from the adhesive used to attach the bag to the faucet, as recited in claim 9. Claim 14 is indefinite for the same reasons, as it’s unclear whether double sided adhesive is used to a) attach the bag to the faucet, b) attach the sponge to the bag, or c) both.
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 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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelsea (“How to Clean Calcium off Faucets, Two-Twenty One, 2015) in view of Amano (JP2005280813A, machine translation).
Chelsea teaches a method of cleaning a faucet comprising providing a faucet cleaning device comprising a plastic sandwich bag, a cleaning agent (calcium lime removal agent) located in the bag, placing the faucet head into the bag portion, attaching the bag to the faucet with a rubber band, filling the bag with a diluted cleaning agent, waiting for a period of time (i.e. few hours) and removing the bag from the faucet.
Re claim 9, Chelsea does not specifically teach filling the bag with water from the faucet. However, Chelsea does teach filling the bag with 1 part cleaning solution to 1 part water, and therefore, it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to dilute the cleaning solution with water from the faucet.
Re claim 9, Chelsea teaches rubber bands to attach the “plastic baggie” to the faucet, but fails to teach using an adhesive. Amano teaches using rubber bands to close a bag (abstract) and further teaches a combination of double sided tape in combination with the rubber band to seal the bag (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Chelsea, to use equivalent and/or additional fasteners, such as double-sided tape, as taught by Amano, to seal the bag.
Re claim 9, Chelsea teaches wiping the faucet with the sponge (dehydrated sponge, magic eraser) or rag to remove buildup. Chelsea fails to teach placement of the sponge in the bag. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the sponge in the bag in contact with the faucet for purposes of wiping the faucet as the faucet is immersed in the cleaning solution, in order to further aid in the effective removal of buildup from the faucet head. The selection of any order of performing process steps or mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, in the absence of new or unexpected results, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440, In re Gibson, 5 USPQ 230.
Re claim 10, Chelsea teaches the magic eraser sponge which reads on applicant’s limitations of a dehydrated sponge. Re claim 12, Amano teaches a double sided tape. Re claims 13-14, Chelsea in view of Amano do not teach attaching the sponge to the bag with an adhesive. Amano teaches in general using fasteners such as double sided tape, which is commonly known in the art for several uses, as further evidenced by Lynn et al. (US2005/0231373). Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a common fastener, such as an adhesive, in particular double side tape, as a means to attach the sponge the bag to prevent movement during contact with the faucet head during cleaning.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelsea (“How to Clean Calcium off Faucets, Two-Twenty One, 2015) in view of Amano (JP2005280813A, machine translation) and further view of Gutierrez (“Use citric acid to clean your dishwasher and other gross household items, Poplar Science, 2/28/2023).
Chelsea in view of Amano teaches the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the cleaning agent being citric acid powder. Chelsea teaches a calcium lime removal agent, CLR. Gutierrez teaches immersing a showerhead and faucet aerator in a citric acid solution (pages 5-6). In reference to a citric acid powder, Gutierrez teaches crystallized citric acid (page 4). Page 4 teaches the use of citric acid to remove calcium and lime from hard water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Chelsea to include equivalent calcium and lime removal agents, such as citric acid powder, as taught by Gutierrez, for purposes of performing the same function of removal mineral buildup from the faucet.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Won et al. teach a cellulose sponge with an adhesive. Douglas et al. teach a descaling agent. Thimmesh Rachie teach a water dissolvable applicator for cleaning a faucet. Biggs teaches using a Ziploc bag to clean the faucet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc