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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,077. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US, Pat. 10,919,077 recites a cleanroom wiper and method of making a cleanroom wiper which are almost identical including the weave pattern, amounts of polyester and nylon in the conjugate fibers, made with pure water and even wetting.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of US Patent No. 11,858,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US Patent No. 11,858,012 recites a cleanroom wiper and method of making a cleanroom wiper which are almost identical including the weave pattern, amounts of polyester and nylon in the conjugate fibers, made with pure water and even wetting.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12/103,054. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US Patent No. 12/103,054 recites a cleanroom wiper and method of making a cleanroom wiper which are almost identical including the weave pattern, amounts of polyester and nylon in the conjugate fibers, made with pure water and even wetting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foamtec (“The VOC Free Cleanroom Wiper”, Feb. 15, 2017) in view of Zhang et al. (CN202809110) as evidenced by KR 100908217.
Regarding claims 1-2, Foamtec teaches a cleanroom wiper comprising a woven fabric having a first microfiber material comprising nylon/polyester conjugate wherein the woven fabric is pre-saturated with only ultrapure water. While Foamtec is silent regarding the claimed even wetting into the wiper. However, given Foamtec teaches such a similar wipe made of such similar material composition the claimed even wetting into the wiper is necessarily inherent to the wiper of Foamtec. The woven fabric comprises sealed edges.
The microfiber material is a nylon/polyester conjugate. Foamtec is silent regarding the claimed second and distinct separate microfiber and number of warp and weft threads in the weaving pattern. However, Zhang et al. teach inclusion of a second polyester fiber and the number of warp and weft threads in the weaving pattern [Examples] is even in order to affect the properties of the wipe. It is noted that although Zhang et al. teach polyester fiber which is not microfiber, Zhang et al. teach it is known in the art to use polyester microfiber which prevents scratches and damage. Zhang et al. teach there is minimal peek through of the polyester fibers which mean there is some damage that can be caused by the wipe and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would been motivated to use microfiber polyester fibers as the second fibers to ensure absolutely there is no damage from the wipe and provide improved wipe properties. It would have been obvious to use the polyester second fibers and the number of warp and weft thread sin the weaving pattern of Zhang et al. in Foamtec in order to affect the wipe properties and ensure there is no damage from the wipe and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed percentages of each component. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed percentages of each component through routine experimentation and also to affect the properties of the wipe as evidenced by KR 100908217.
Claims 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foamtec (“The VOC Free Cleanroom Wiper”, Feb. 15, 2017) in view of Zhang et al. (CN202809110) in view of Morin et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0266752).
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 14, Foamtec teaches a method for making a pre-saturated cleanroom wiper saturated with only ultrapure water comprising the steps of weaving a first microfibers material comprising nylon/polyester conjugate to create a woven fabric. The cleanroom wiper made by a method comprising the steps of weaving the at least two distinct microfiber materials to create a woven fabric wherein one of the microfiber materials comprises a nylon/polymer conjugate. Foamtec is silent regarding the claimed second and distinct separate microfiber and the number of warp and weft threads in the weaving pattern. However, Zhang et al. teach inclusion of a second polyester fiber and the number of warp and weft threads in the weaving pattern [Examples] is even in order to affect the properties of the wipe. It is noted that although Zhang et al. teach polyester fiber which is not microfiber, Zhang et al. teach it is known in the art to use polyester microfiber which prevents scratches and damage. Zhang et al. teach there is minimal peek through of the polyester fibers which mean there is some damage that can be caused by the wipe and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would been motivated to use microfiber polyester fibers as the second fibers to ensure absolutely there is no damage from the wipe and provide improved wipe properties. It would have been obvious to use the polyester second fibers and the number of warp and weft threads in the weaving pattern of Zhang et al. in Foamtec in order to affect the wipe properties and ensure there is no damage from the wipe and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the processing with process as claimed. However, Morin et al. teach processing fabric with high pressure (agitation) and at least one surfactant. The fabric is cleaned with purified water, dried, cut and the edges of the woven fabric sealed to create individual wiper and packaged. Morin et al. teach the step of relaxing the woven fabric before the step of processing the woven fabric as Morin et al. teach heat setting after the initial spinning of the fiber and fabric formation. Morin et al. teaches the cleaning step comprises washing the fabric with a detergent followed by rinsing of the woven fabric in order to ensure all the detergent was removed and to ensure the wipe is free of contaminants. Repeated rinsing and rinsing with aseptic pure water would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art Further, Foamtec teach sealing. Morin et al. is silent regarding the claimed cleaning with aseptic ultrapure water. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize aseptic ultrapure water to clean the fabric as is known in the art in order to improve the cleaning. Foamtec teaches the pre-saturated wipers being packaged with only ultrapure water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Morin et al. in the previous combination in order to yield cleanroom wipes that provides excellent cleaning without contamination and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination is silent regarding the step of cutting and sealing the edges of the woven fabric comprising simultaneous cutting and sealing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform cutting and sealing of the edges at the same time in order to save time and money and for efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed step of sterilization of the package of pre-saturated wipers. However, sterilization of the package of pre-saturated wipers would have been obvious as is known in the art and since the wipers are for cleanrooms.
Regarding claims 15, The previous combination is silent regarding the processing with process as claimed. However, Morin et al. teach processing fabric with high pressure (agitation) and at least one surfactant. The fabric is cleaned with purified water, dried, cut and the edges of the woven fabric sealed to create individual wiper and packaged. Morin et al. teach the step of relaxing the woven fabric before the step of processing the woven fabric as Morin et al. teach heat setting after the initial spinning of the fiber and fabric formation. Morin et al. teaches the cleaning step comprises washing the fabric with a detergent followed by rinsing of the woven fabric in order to ensure all the detergent was removed and to ensure the wipe is free of contaminants. Repeated rinsing and rinsing with aseptic pure water would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art Further, Foamtec teach sealing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Morin et al. in the previous combination in order to yield cleanroom wipes that provides excellent cleaning without contamination and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed percentages of each component. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed percentages of each component through routine experimentation and also to affect the properties of the wipe as evidenced by KR 100908217.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN202809110) in view of Foamtec (“The VOC Free Cleanroom Wiper”, Feb. 15, 2017) as evidenced by KR 100908217.
Regarding claims 16 and 18-19, Zhang et al. teaches a cleanroom wiper comprising a woven fabric having microfiber materials including a first microfiber material including nylon/polyester conjugate woven with a second separate and distinct material comprising a polyester. The woven fabric comprises sealed edges. It is noted that although Zhang et al. teach polyester fiber which is not microfiber, Zhang et al. teach it is known in the art to use polyester microfiber which prevents scratches and damage. Zhang et al. teach inclusion of a second polyester fiber and the number of warp and weft threads in the weaving pattern [Examples] is even in order to affect the properties of the wipe. Zhang et al. teach there is minimal peek through of the polyester fibers which means there is some damage that can be caused by the wipe and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would been motivated to use microfiber polyester fibers as the second fibers to ensure absolutely there is no damage from the wipe and provide improved wipe properties. Zhang et al. is silent regarding the woven fabric is pre-saturated with only ultrapure water. However, Foamtec teaches pre-saturating wipes with ultrapure water only in order to provide a wipe that leaves surfaces clean and dry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the ultrapure water of Foamtec in Zhang et al. in order to provide a wipe that leaves surfaces clean and dry and arrive at the claimed invention. The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed even wetting into the wiper and properties of claim 4. However, given the previous combination teaches such a similar wipe made of such similar material composition the claimed even wetting into the wiper and properties of claim 4 are necessarily inherent to the wiper of the previous combination.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed percentages of each component. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed percentages of each component through routine experimentation and also to affect the properties of the wipe as evidenced by KR 100908217.
Claims 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN202809110) in view of Foamtec (“The VOC Free Cleanroom Wiper”, Feb. 15, 2017) in view of Morin et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0266752).
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 14, Zhang et al. are silent regarding the other processing. However, Morin et al. teach processing fabric with high pressure (agitation) and at least one surfactant. The fabric is cleaned with purified water, dried, cut and the edges of the woven fabric sealed to create individual wiper and packaged. Morin et al. teach the step of relaxing the woven fabric before the step of processing the woven fabric as Morin et al. teach heat setting after the initial spinning of the fiber and fabric formation. Morin et al. teaches the cleaning step comprises washing the fabric with a detergent followed by rinsing of the woven fabric in order to ensure all the detergent was removed and to ensure the wipe is free of contaminants. Repeated rinsing and rinsing with aseptic pure water would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art Further, Foamtec teach sealing. Morin et al. is silent regarding the claimed cleaning with aseptic ultrapure water. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize aseptic ultrapure water to clean the fabric as is known in the art in order to improve the cleaning. Foamtec teaches the pre-saturated wipers being packaged with only ultrapure water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Morin et al. in the previous combination in order to yield cleanroom wipes that provides excellent cleaning without contamination and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination is silent regarding the step of cutting and sealing the edges of the woven fabric comprising simultaneous cutting and sealing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform cutting and sealing of the edges at the same time in order to save time and money and for efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed step of sterilization of the package of pre-saturated wipers. However, sterilization of the package of pre-saturated wipers would have been obvious as is known in the art and since the wipers are for cleanrooms.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang et al. teach a method for making a pre-saturated cleanroom wiper saturated with only ultrapure water comprising the steps of weaving a first microfibers material comprising nylon/polyester conjugate woven with a second separate and distinct material comprising a polyester to create a woven fabric. Zhang et al. teach the process includes cutting the woven fabric and sealing the edges of the woven fabric to create individual wipers and packaging the wipers. Zhang et al. are silent regarding the other processing. However, Morin et al. teach processing fabric with high pressure (agitation) and at least one surfactant. The fabric is cleaned with purified water, dried, cut and the edges of the woven fabric sealed to create individual wiper and packaged. Morin et al. teach the step of relaxing the woven fabric before the step of processing the woven fabric as Morin et al. teach heat setting after the initial spinning of the fiber and fabric formation. Morin et al. teaches the cleaning step comprises washing the fabric with a detergent followed by rinsing of the woven fabric in order to ensure all the detergent was removed and to ensure the wipe is free of contaminants. Repeated rinsing and rinsing with aseptic pure water would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art Further, Foamtec teach sealing.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed percentages of each component. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed percentages of each component through routine experimentation and also to affect the properties of the wipe as evidenced by KR 100908217.
Prior At Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2007/0010153 teaches a cleanroom wiper made of polyester filaments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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 call Examiner at 571-272-6116.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights