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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because "Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 ").
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 1-9, 11 and 14 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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 recites a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process, making the scope of the claims indefinite because the claims merely recite a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. For the purpose of examination and for the purpose of compact prosecution, it is assumed that the process involves a positive step of cleaning and/or disinfecting floors. Note that the phrase “for cleaning and/or disinfecting floors” does not appear to clearly claim a step of doing so.
Claims 2 and 11 recites “80 g/m2 to 120 g/m2” which is inclusive 80 gm/m2. However, claims 1 and 10, from which claims 2 and 11 are dependent recites > 80 g/m2. Therefore, it is unclear if 80 g/m2 is included in the scope of claims 2 and 11.
Claims 9 and 14 recite “group comprising of…” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The term “comprising” is open ended, making it unclear what other, unlisted elements are included in the claimed group.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinkaus et al (US 20240076588) and in view of Vail et al (US 20240066162 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Trinkaus discloses a disposable sweeping cloth made of CAC material (paragraph 0072), wherein the CAC material is impregnated with an impregnating agent, for cleaning and/or disinfecting floors (paragraph 0017).
Trinkaus discloses a grammage of 80 g/m2 but is silent regarding a grammage > 80 g/m2 which could be only a small fraction of a g/m2 above 80. This amount is deemed to be so close to the prior art that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 which sets forth that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Furthermore, Vail sets forth that the weight basis of a nonwoven wipe material is a result effective variable, wherein if the basis weight is too low, there may not be enough contact between the fibers of the wipe and the microorganism on the surface, whereas, if the basis weight becomes too high, the cost of the wipe can increase. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, at the time of filing, to modify Trinkaus to have the claimed grammage since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Trinkaus discloses use of the cloth for cleaning and/or disinfecting but is silent regarding use for floors. However, Vail teaches use of a disinfecting wipe on floors (paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Trinkaus further having it for use for floors, as taught by Vail, for the purpose of providing the wipe of cleaning of a desired area in need of cleaning.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Trinkaus, as set forth above is such that the CAC material has a grammage of 80 g/m2 to 120 g/m2.
Regarding claim 6, Trinkaus discloses that the impregnating agent with which the CAC material of the used disposable sweeping cloth is impregnated contains at least one compound having antimicrobial properties (alcohol; paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Trinkaus as modified sets forth a structure such that the impregnating agent with which the CAC material of the disposable sweeping cloth used is impregnated being released onto the surface to be cleaned to be disinfected leaving a continuous liquid film on the latter but is silent regarding this is carried out for disinfecting floors, the disposable sweeping cloth being moved over the floor surface to be disinfected by means of sweeping movements, the impregnating agent with which the CAC material of the disposable sweeping cloth used is impregnated being released onto the floor surface to be disinfected during the sweeping movements and leaving a continuous liquid film on the latter.
However, Vail further teaches the disposable sweeping cloth being moved over the floor (paragraph 0002 as set forth above) surface to be disinfected by means of sweeping movements (paragraph 0082 discloses “wiping” which is interpreted as serving as sweeping in that the movement is the same).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify Trinkaus by performing the use by sweeping cloth being moved over the floor surface, as taught by Vail, for the purpose of effectively cleaning a surface in need of disinfecting.
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Trinkaus discloses that the disposable sweeping cloth comprises or is engageable with one or more fastening means, the fastening means being selected from the group comprising or consisting of tapes, buttons, hooks, a zip fastener and a Velcro fastener (fastening means are not positively claimed and the cloth as disclosed is of a structure that would allow it to engage with a fastening means as claimed).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinkaus et al (US 20240076588), in view of Vail et al (US 20240066162 A1) and in view of Niemeyer et al (US 20260160004 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Trinkaus as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 10. Trinkaus is further silent regarding the CAC material has an embossing. However, Niemeyer teaches a cleaning cloth having an embossing (paragraph 0108). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Trinkaus by providing the material with an embossing, as taught by Niemeyer, for the purpose of increasing the basis weight and improving cleaning efficiency.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinkaus et al (US 20240076588), in view of Vail et al (US 20240066162 A1) and further in view of Kopacz et al (US 20050148260 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Trinkaus as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Trinkaus is further silent regarding the storage capacity of the disposable sweeping cloth used for cleaning and/or disinfecting floors for impregnating agents is 70-1,200% of the mass of the CAC material per unit area.
However, Kopacz teaches a cleaning wipe with a storage capacity within the claimed range (paragraph 0104: 330 wt% of the solution based on the dry weight of the wipe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Trinkaus to have the claimed storage capacity, as taught by Kopacz, for the purpose of the wipe holding an amount of cleaning solution to clean a desired area.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinkaus et al (US 20240076588), in view of Vail et al (US 20240066162 A1) and further in view of Paris, JR. et al (US 20230002705 A1)
Regarding claim 8 and 12, Trinkaus as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 10. Trinkaus is further silent regarding the layers of the CAC material are bonded together by hydroentanglement and without binders. However, Paris teaches layers of material bonded together by hydroentanglement and without binders (paragraph 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Trinkaus by having the layers bonded together by hydroentanglement and without binders, as taught by Paris, for the purpose of using a known technique for improving the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero, can be reached at (571) 272-7839. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights