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 .
Notes
Claims 24-25 are identified as “original”, however they should be labeled as “new” and are being examined in this manner.
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) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dent (EP 4349233) in view of Bradley (WO 2018063458).
Dent teaches a cleaning product having a longitudinal axis (L) between opposing transverse edges (5) that cross said longitudinal axis and longitudinal edges (10) spaced apart from said longitudinal axis and extending between said transverse edges, wherein said cleaning product comprises: a first nonwoven (15) comprising a first nonwoven central portion (35) along said longitudinal axis, a plurality of first nonwoven strips (20) extending from said first nonwoven central portion, wherein said first nonwoven strips comprise first nonwoven fixed ends (25) along said first nonwoven central portion and extend to first nonwoven free ends (30).
With regards to claim 22, the first nonwoven has a first configuration in which said first nonwoven strips are in plane with one another (figure 1, bottom half of cleaning pad below the transverse axis, T) and a second configuration in which a majority of said first nonwoven strips are bent out of plane about said first nonwoven fixed ends (figure 2, upper half of cleaning pad above the transverse axis, T).
With regards to claim 23, the first nonwoven has a first configuration in which said first nonwoven strips are in plane with one another (figure 1, bottom half of cleaning pad below the transverse axis, T) and a second configuration in which a majority of said first nonwoven strips are bent out of plane about said first nonwoven fixed ends (figure 2, upper half of cleaning pad above the transverse axis, T), wherein said first nonwoven strips comprise lateral edges extending from said first nonwoven fixed ends to said first nonwoven free ends (figure 1, bottom half of cleaning pad below the transverse axis, T, the lateral edges are the cuts in the strips that run parallel to the transverse axis) and wherein in said second configuration at least some of said lateral edges are engaged with neighboring said first nonwoven strip (figure 6 shows that when fluffed, the strips are engaged with neighboring strips).
With regards to claim 24, there is a transverse axis (T) orthogonal to said longitudinal axis, and wherein said cleaning product is folded about said transverse axis such that portions of said first nonwoven on opposite sides of said transverse axis are in face to face relationship with one another (figure 5).
Dent teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements that constitutively differs from said first nonwoven and is engaged with said first nonwoven strips (claim 21), wherein the polymeric elements have a cumulative mass of about 1-60% of the strip mass (claim 21), wherein at least some of said lateral edges are engaged with one or more said nonfibrous polymeric elements of a neighboring said first nonwoven strip (claim 23) and wherein members of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements comprise a porous ink (claim 25).
Bradley teaches a cleaning device with nonfibrous polymeric elements (30) that is comprised of a porous ink (page 10, lines 14-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dent so that the nonwoven strips comprise polymeric elements as taught by Bradley to improve the texture of the strips and thus clean more effectively. Further, when the strips with the polymeric elements are fluffed, it is clear that the lateral edges would engage with the polymeric elements of the neighboring strips as shown by the overlapping strips that occurs when the cleaning product is fluffed, in figure 6 of Dent.
Lastly, while Bradley does not teach a specific mass of the polymeric elements, the claimed range is very broad; about 1-60%. Upon combining the polymeric elements of Bradley with the strips of Dent, one of ordinary skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum mass of the cumulative polymeric elements to be between 1 and 60% of the strip mass. This range would be optimal for designing a strip that is light enough to be fluffed and remain fluffed when in use. If the mass of the polymeric elements was greater than 60% of the mass of the strips, the strips would be much heavier and weighed down, thus not allowing for as much fluff between layers. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to make the mass of the polymeric elements of the Bradley 1-60% of the mass of Dent’s strips to optimize the performance of the cleaning product.
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (PGPub 2014082872) in view of Bradley (WO 2018063458).
Tsuchiya teaches a cleaning product having a longitudinal axis (figure 3, longitudinal direction) between opposing transverse edges (figure 4, vertical edges of 111a) that cross said longitudinal axis and longitudinal edges (figure 4, horizontal edges of 111a) spaced apart from said longitudinal axis and extending between said transverse edges, wherein said cleaning product comprises: a first nonwoven (paragraph 0074, 0075) comprising a first nonwoven central portion (figure 4, portion which receives arms 115) along said longitudinal axis, a plurality of first nonwoven strips (112a) extending from said first nonwoven central portion, wherein said first nonwoven strips comprise first nonwoven fixed ends along said first nonwoven central portion and extend to first nonwoven free ends (figure 3).
With regards to claim 22, the first nonwoven has a first configuration in which said first nonwoven strips are in plane with one another (figure 1) and a second configuration in which a majority of said first nonwoven strips are bent out of plane about said first nonwoven fixed ends (paragraph 0096, 0097).
With regards to claim 23, the first nonwoven has a first configuration in which said first nonwoven strips are in plane with one another (figure 1) and a second configuration in which a majority of said first nonwoven strips are bent out of plane about said first nonwoven fixed ends (paragraph 0096, 0097), wherein said first nonwoven strips comprise lateral edges extending from said first nonwoven fixed ends to said first nonwoven free ends (figure 4, zigzag cut lines 1) and wherein in said second configuration at least some of said lateral edges are engaged with neighboring said first nonwoven strip (when fluffed, the strips are engaged with neighboring strips).
With regards to claim 24, there is a transverse axis (extends from one longitudinal edge to the other, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) orthogonal to said longitudinal axis, and wherein said cleaning product is folded about said transverse axis such that portions of said first nonwoven on opposite sides of said transverse axis are in face to face relationship with one another (the cleaning product can be folded in any manner).
Tsuchiya teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements that constitutively differs from said first nonwoven and is engaged with said first nonwoven strips (claim 21), wherein at least some of said lateral edges are engaged with one or more said nonfibrous polymeric elements of a neighboring said first nonwoven strip (claim 23) and wherein members of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements comprise a porous ink (claim 25).
Bradley teaches a cleaning device with nonfibrous polymeric elements (30) that is comprised of a porous ink (page 10, lines 14-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya so that the nonwoven strips comprise polymeric elements as taught by Bradley to improve the texture of the strips and thus clean more effectively. Further, when the strips with the polymeric elements are fluffed, it is clear that the lateral edges would engage with the polymeric elements of the neighboring strips as shown by the overlapping strips that occurs when the cleaning product is fluffed.
Lastly, while Bradley does not teach a specific mass of the polymeric elements, the claimed range is very broad; about 1-60%. Upon combining the polymeric elements of Bradley with the strips of Tsuchiya, one of ordinary skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum mass of the cumulative polymeric elements to be between 1 and 60% of the strip mass. This range would be optimal for designing a strip that is light enough to be fluffed and remain fluffed when in use. If the mass of the polymeric elements was greater than 60% of the mass of the strips, the strips would be much heavier and weighed down, thus not allowing for as much fluff between layers. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to make the mass of the polymeric elements of the Bradley 1-60% of the mass of Tsuchiya’s strips to optimize the performance of the cleaning product.
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogale (PGPub 20110041274) in view of Bradley (WO 2018063458).
Ogale teaches a cleaning product having a longitudinal axis (30) between opposing transverse edges (figure 1, top and bottom edges of 10) that cross said longitudinal axis and longitudinal edges (figure 1, left and right edges of 10) spaced apart from said longitudinal axis and extending between said transverse edges, wherein said cleaning product comprises: a first nonwoven (paragraph 0009, step c (nonwoven top sheet)) comprising a first nonwoven central portion (figure 1, 10) along said longitudinal axis, a plurality of first nonwoven strips (22) extending from said first nonwoven central portion, wherein said first nonwoven strips comprise first nonwoven fixed ends along said first nonwoven central portion and extend to first nonwoven free ends (figure 1).
With regards to claim 22, the first nonwoven has a first configuration in which said first nonwoven strips are in plane with one another (paragraph 0009, step a-b; stacking sheets and then cutting the sheets, thus when in sheets, they are in a plane together) and a second configuration in which a majority of said first nonwoven strips are bent out of plane about said first nonwoven fixed ends (fluffed; figure 1 and 2).
With regards to claim 23, the first nonwoven has a first configuration in which said first nonwoven strips are in plane with one another (paragraph 0009, step a-b; stacking sheets and then cutting the sheets, thus when in sheets, they are in a plane together) and a second configuration in which a majority of said first nonwoven strips are bent out of plane about said first nonwoven fixed ends (fluffed; figure 1 and 2), wherein said first nonwoven strips comprise lateral edges extending from said first nonwoven fixed ends to said first nonwoven free ends (figure 1, longitudinal edges of the strips) and wherein in said second configuration at least some of said lateral edges are engaged with neighboring said first nonwoven strip (when fluffed, the strips are engaged with neighboring strips; paragraph 0023).
With regards to claim 24, there is a transverse axis (extends from one longitudinal edge to the other, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) orthogonal to said longitudinal axis, and wherein said cleaning product is folded about said transverse axis such that portions of said first nonwoven on opposite sides of said transverse axis are in face to face relationship with one another (the cleaning product can be folded in any manner).
Ogale teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements that constitutively differs from said first nonwoven and is engaged with said first nonwoven strips (claim 21), wherein at least some of said lateral edges are engaged with one or more said nonfibrous polymeric elements of a neighboring said first nonwoven strip (claim 23) and wherein members of said first plurality of nonfibrous polymeric elements comprise a porous ink (claim 25).
Bradley teaches a cleaning device with nonfibrous polymeric elements (30) that is comprised of a porous ink (page 10, lines 14-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ogale so that the nonwoven strips comprise polymeric elements as taught by Bradley to improve the texture of the strips and thus clean more effectively. Further, when the strips with the polymeric elements are fluffed, it is clear that the lateral edges would engage with the polymeric elements of the neighboring strips as shown by the overlapping strips that occurs when the cleaning product is fluffed.
Lastly, while Bradley does not teach a specific mass of the polymeric elements, the claimed range is very broad; about 1-60%. Upon combining the polymeric elements of Bradley with the strips of Ogale, one of ordinary skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum mass of the cumulative polymeric elements to be between 1 and 60% of the strip mass. This range would be optimal for designing a strip that is light enough to be fluffed and remain fluffed when in use. If the mass of the polymeric elements was greater than 60% of the mass of the strips, the strips would be much heavier and weighed down, thus not allowing for as much fluff between layers. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to make the mass of the polymeric elements of the Bradley 1-60% of the mass of Ogale’s strips to optimize the performance of the cleaning product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 18-19 are allowed.
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 and 26 include the limitation that the polymeric elements are sized and dimensioned to provide a pattern created volume from about 0.2mm to about 1mm. The prior art fail to teach the pattern created volume and it would not have been obvious to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention since there is no teaching or motivation to do so. Therefore, these claims are free from the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment, filed 6/15/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 18-19 has been withdrawn.
New claims 21-25 required further search and a new rejection was made in view of those claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights