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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The presentations of the claims do not conform with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.75(i), which states, “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”.
Claims 3-4 recite “at least one said longitudinal edge” and “one said longitudinal edge”. The examiner recommends the use of consistent phrasing.
Claim 9 recites “an apertured nonwoven”. This appears to be missing a word.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
The term “about” in claim 1, 14, 16, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 2-20 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
It is noted that Page 37 attempts to provide guidance, but fails to adequate appraise a person of ordinary skill in the art the meaning of this relative term.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said absorbent core". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the examiner understands this to depend from claim 11.
Claim 8 is rejected for its dependency from claim 7.
The term “substantially” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 16 recites “a pattern created volume from about 0.2 mm to about 1 mm.” It is unclear what this means as the units “mm” are not volumetric measurements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoying (US 20170181595 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoying teaches cleaning product (Fig 1A, 10) having a longitudinal axis between opposing transverse edges that cross said longitudinal axis (Fig 1A, longitudinal axis defined by 12, traverse axis at the top/bottom perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) and longitudinal edges spaced apart from said longitudinal axis and extending between said transverse edges (Fig 1A, longitudinal edges, seen), wherein said cleaning product comprises:
a liquid pervious floor sheet (Fig 1A, 14, Para 0013), wherein said liquid pervious floor sheet has a floor sheet area in a plane defined by said transverse edges and said longitudinal edges (Fig 1A, see 14, plane defined);
a nonwoven substrate joined to said liquid pervious floor sheet (Fig 1A, 12, see Para 0041); and
a first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements that constitutively differs from said nonwoven substrate and is engaged with said nonwoven substrate (Fig 2, elements 16U and its sub-elements e.g. 16A, see Para 0022, U.S. Pat. No. 8,603,622 are polymeric particulars);
wherein said nonwoven substrate covers from about 2% to about 40% of said floor sheet area (Fig 1A, Para 0036, width including 10, 20, 30, 40% and extends across the whole length).
Regarding claim 2, Hoying teaches wherein said nonwoven substrate is at least partially coincident with said longitudinal axis (see Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 5, Hoying teaches wherein said nonwoven substrate extends from one said transverse edge to another said transverse edge (see Fig 1A)..
Regarding claim 6, Hoying teaches wherein said cleaning product further comprises a backsheet, wherein at least a portion of said floor sheet is positioned between said nonwoven substrate and said backsheet (Fig 2, backsheet e.g. 18).
Regarding claim 9, Hoying teaches wherein said floor sheet is an apertured nonwoven (Para 0071).
Regarding claim 10, Hoying teaches wherein said cleaning product further comprises a backsheet (Fig 2, 18) and an absorbent core between said floor sheet and said backsheet (Fig 2, 16L), wherein said nonwoven substrate is on a side of said floor sheet opposite said absorbent core (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hoying teaches wherein at least a portion of said floor sheet is between said nonwoven substrate and said absorbent core (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, Hoying teaches wherein said nonwoven substrate is inboard of said longitudinal edges (Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 15, Hoying teaches wherein at least some members of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements comprise a substantially flat surface substantially parallel to said nonwoven substrate (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Hoying teaches wherein members of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements comprise ink (Fig 2, Para 0022, U.S. Pat. No. 8,603,622 are particles include colorants, see Column 14, line 14-20).
Regarding claim 18, Hoying teaches wherein members of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements comprise a porous ink (Fig 2, Para 0022, U.S. Pat. No. 8,603,622 are particles include colorants, see Column 14, line 14-20; porous by virtue of its use on the absorbant).
Regarding claim 20, Hoying teaches wherein said nonwoven substrate has a basis weight from about 15 to about 80 g/m2 (Para 0040, “cleaning strip (12) may have a basis weight of 40 to 60 gsm”).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying (US 20170181595 A1), in view of Pung (US 8250700 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Hoying is not explicit on wherein said nonwoven substrate is at least partially coincident with at least one said longitudinal edge.
Pung teaches a cleaning surface at least partially coincident with at least one said longitudinal edge (Fig 2, edge surface 4, note the folded/mounted state).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hoyng by having the cleaning surface at least partially coincident with at least one said longitudinal edge as disclosed by Pung because it would allow for the cleaning engagement with certain surfaces oriented in the manner discussed by Pung.
Regarding claim 4, Hoying is silent on wherein said nonwoven substrate is inboard of said longitudinal axis and one said longitudinal edge.
Pung teaches a cleaning surface inboard of said longitudinal axis and one said longitudinal edge (Fig 1, surface 4, note the unfolded/unmounted state).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hoying by having the cleaning surface inboard of said longitudinal axis and one said longitudinal edge as disclosed by Pung because it would allow for the cleaning engagement with certain surfaces oriented in the manner discussed by Pung.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying (US 20170181595 A1)
Regarding claim 14, while Hoying teaches a weight per unit area of 30 to 90 g/m.sup.2 (Fig 2, Para 0022, U.S. Pat. No. 8,603,622 are particles include colorants, see Column 2, line 31-32), Hoying is not explicit on wherein said cleaning product comprises from about 0.5 g/m2 to about 30 g/m2of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hoying by having said cleaning product comprise from about 0.5 g/m2 to about 30 g/m2of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 11, 16, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim of copending Application No. 18941107 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application either encompass the claims of the instant application and/or are substantially coextensive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim of copending Application No. 18941125 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application either encompass the claims of the instant application and/or are substantially coextensive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim of copending Application No. 18941177 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application either encompass the claims of the instant application and/or are substantially coextensive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim of copending Application No. 18941295 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application either encompass the claims of the instant application and/or are substantially coextensive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights