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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9-10, and 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 2, 9-10, and 23-24 “said motor” should be “said electric motor”.
In Claims 1 and 23-24 “said secondary wheels” should be “”said pair of secondary wheels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink (US 2012/0227765, previously presented) in view of Lee (US 5,765,250, previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Geurkink teaches A floor cleaning and polishing apparatus (Ref. 100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (Ref. 140, Fig. 1), said frame having an electric motor (Ref. 150, Fig. 1&2, [0009-0010] describes using a motor and electric chord) thereon, said motor operatively connected to a planar pad driver (Ref. 200, fig. 2, [0009]);
an electric power supply (Ref. 170, Fig. 1, [0010]) for said motor ([0010] describes using an electric chord);
a first pair of wheels (Ref. 196&197, Fig. 1) engaged to a rearward side of said frame (140, right side of Fig. 1);
said planar pad driver having first cooperative fasteners (Ref. 210, Fig. 2, [0012]) thereon;
a pad (Ref. 130, Fig. 2, [0012]), said pad having a first side (See annotated Fig. 2 below) having second cooperative fasteners (Ref. 230, Fig. 2, [0013]) thereon which are engageable to said first cooperative fasteners (Fig. 2);
said pad having a second side (See annotated Fig. 2 below) for contacting a surface ([0009]);
a tank (Ref. 181, fig. 1, [0011]) having an interior cavity holding a fluid supply ([0011] describes the spray tank holding fluid) for communication through a conduit to fluid jets (Ref. 183&184, Fig. 1, [0011]);
a handle (Ref. 165, Fig. 1, [0010]) rotationally engaged to said frame at an engagement end of said handle (See annotated Fig. 1 below), said handle extending from said engagement end to a distal end (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
said handle having a stowed position (Fig. 1), extending at an angle substantially upright from said frame (Fig. 1);
a secondary wheel (Ref. 194, Fig. 1) movable with said handle ([0010-0011] describes the wheel as part of the frame which is attached to the handle and would be movable with the handle through the frame, examiner notes the term movable as movable in any direction), said secondary wheel engaged to a rotating axle (Ref. 195, Fig. 1,[0010] describes the wheel as attached to the frame);
said secondary wheel rotatable upon said rotating axle from a retracted position (Fig. 1) to a deployed position ([0010-0011] describes the wheels are deployable in 10 degree increments and help support the tank (181));
Said secondary wheel rotatable upon said rotating axle to said deployed position ([0010] describes the wheels being adjustable mounted in increments of 10 degrees allowing wheels to be rotated into a deployed position) contacting said surface on a side of said first pair of wheels opposite from said frame (Fig. 1, [0010-0011] teaches the wheels (194) are used to support the load of the tank requiring the wheels to contact a surface of the floor);
said secondary wheel in said deployed position forming a rear support ([0011] describes the secondary wheels help support the tank (181)) supporting said rearward side of said frame (Fig. 1 shows the wheels on the rear side of the frame), said rear support aligned with said pad (examiner notes, aligned in its broadest reasonable interpretation can be aligned in a lateral direction, horizontal direction, or within the same plane or in relation to the frame, Fig. 1 shows the supports aligned with the pad in a vertical direction) and
said frame positionable to an elevated position (Fig. 1) supported upon said first pair of wheels (Fig. 1), by tilting frame with said handle while in said stowed position ([0010-0011], Fig. 1 shows that tilting the frame allows for the maneuvering of the system, examiner notes this limitation is interpreted as intended use and the frame would be capable of being tiltable); and
said frame position able to a cleaning position (Fig. 1) having a rotating contact of said second side of said pad with said surface (Fig. 1, [0009]).
Geurkink fails to explicitly teach a pair of secondary wheels. Lee teaches a floor cleaning device with a frame, motor, and tank and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a first pair of wheels (Ref. 15&16, Fig. 2) engaged to a rearward side of a frame (Ref. 13&14, Fig. 1) and a pair of secondary wheels (Ref. 19&20, Fig. 2) that are used to support a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the secondary wheel, as taught by Geurkink, to be a pair of secondary wheels, as taught by Lee, by duplication of parts since such a modification would yield the predictable result of supporting a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus and providing more stability to the apparatus.
Geurkink as modified further fails to teach the handle rotationally engaged to said frame, a lock wherein the lock maintains the handle in a stowed position, said handle having an operating position extending away from said rearward side of said frame and positioned above said first set of wheels. Lee teaches a floor cleaning device with a frame, motor, and tank and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a handle (Ref. 25, Fig. 1) rotationally engaged to a frame (Ref. 13 and 14, Fig. 1&3) at an engagement end of said handle (See annotated Fig. 1 below), said handle extending from said engagement end to a distal end (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
said handle having a stowed position (Fig. 5), extending at an angle substantially upright from said surface (Fig. 5);
a lock (Ref. 30&31, Fig. 3, [Col. 2, Line 16]), said lock for maintaining said handle in said stowed position ([Col. 2, Line 36-40]);
said handle having an operating position extending away from said rearward side of said frame and positioned above said first set of wheels (Ref. 15&16, Fig. 1 shows a range of positions of the handle including a position extending away from said rearward side of said frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the handle and frame, as taught by Geurkink, with the locking rotatable handle and having a stowed position and operating position, as taught by Lee, to adjust the handle to a different position to accommodate a user’s height or desired position ([Col. 1, Line 35-39]).
Given the teachings of the adjustable handle, as taught by Lee, Geurkink in view of Lee teaches a pair of secondary wheels (Ref. 194, Fig. 1, Geurkink) movable with said handle from said stowed position to said operating position ([0010-0011] describes the wheel as part of the frame which is attached to the handle and would be movable with the handle through the frame, examiner notes the term movable as movable in any direction, Geurkink),
said frame positionable to an elevated position (Fig. 1) supported upon said first pair of wheels (Fig. 1), by tilting frame with said handle while held by said lock in said stowed position ([0010-0011], Fig. 1 shows that tilting the frame allows for the maneuvering of the system, Geurkink, examiner notes this limitation is interpreted as intended use as once locked would be capable of tilting the whole frame);
said frame positionable to a cleaning position (Fig. 1, Geurkink) having a rotating contact of said second side of said pad with said surface (Fig. 1, [0009], Geurkink), by positioning said handle to said operating position (Fig. 1, Lee) and positioning said secondary wheels located to said deployed position ([0011], Geurkink).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
861
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
603
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spangler (US 1,192,949, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a switch (Ref. 168, Fig. 1) that can be actuated and depressed ([0010], fig. 1 shows the switch as a button to be pressed on/off) to control electric functions of the cleaner ([. Geurkink as modified fails to explicitly teach said switch actuated to an open position interrupting said electric power supply to said motor by locating said handle to said stowed position and said switch actuated to a closed position communicating said electric power supply to said motor by said handle located to said operating position. Spangler teaches a floor cleaner with a switch and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Spangler teaches a floor cleaner comprising a switch (Ref. 27, Fig. 4) that can be actuated and depressed (Fig. 5-6, [Pg. 2, Lines 37-38] describe the switch as spring blades and are capable of being actuated and depressed); said switch actuated to an open position (Fig. 1) interrupting said electric power supply to said motor by locating said handle to said stowed position (Fig. 1, [Pg. 2, lines 73-88] describes the switch comes out of contact interrupting the circuit when the handle is a stowed position); said switch actuated to a closed position (Fig. 2) communicating said electric power supply to said motor by said handle located to said operating position and depressed (Fig. 2&6, [Pg. 2, Lines 73-88] describes the switch comes in contact complete the circuit when the handle is in an operating position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the actuatable and depressible switch, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with the switch that is actuated and depressed via the handle position, as taught by Spangler, to prevent the motor from running when not intended for use ([Pg. 1, Line 79-82]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink as modified as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Richman (US 9,987,645, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 5, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach an opening communicating with said interior cavity an additive container holding an additive supply therein, a blade positioned within said opening, and said additive container sized for insertion into said opening, and said additive container having a lower surface pierceable by said blade to form an opening therein, whereby insertion of said additive container into said opening causes said blade to form said opening through which said additive supply is disbursed into said interior cavity. Richman teaches a cleaning device with a reservoir to spray onto a surface and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to effectively clean a surface with a cleaning fluid. Richman teaches a cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising an opening (Ref. 440, Fig. 1) communicating with said interior cavity an additive container (Ref. 300, Fig. 1) holding an additive supply therein ([Col. 3, Line 30-33]), a blade (Ref. 448, Fig. 1, [Col. 7, Line 4-6]) positioned within said opening (Fig. 1), said additive container sized for insertion into said opening (Fig. 1), and said additive container having a lower surface (Ref. 320, Fig. 2) pierceable by said blade to form an opening therein ([Col. 7, Line 4-7]), whereby insertion of said additive container into said opening causes said blade to form said opening through which said additive supply is disbursed into said interior cavity ([Col. 7, Line 4-7]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify tank, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with the additive container, as taught by Richman, to allow the user to select different cleaning solutions without different reservoirs ([Background]).
Regarding Claim 6, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Richman further teaches a cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising an opening (Ref. 440, Fig. 1) communicating with said interior cavity an additive container (Ref. 300, Fig. 1) holding an additive supply therein ([Col. 3, Line 30-33]), a blade (Ref. 448, Fig. 1, [Col. 7, Line 4-6]) positioned within said opening (Fig. 1), said additive container sized for insertion into said opening (Fig. 1), and said additive container having a lower surface (Ref. 320, Fig. 2) pierceable by said blade to form an opening therein ([Col. 7, Line 4-7]), whereby insertion of said additive container into said opening causes said blade to form said opening through which said additive supply is disbursed into said interior cavity ([Col. 7, Line 4-7]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify tank, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with the additive container, as taught by Richman, to allow the user to select different cleaning solutions without different reservoirs ([Background]).
Claims 9-10 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink as modified as applied to claims 5-6, and 9 above, and further in view of Kimball (US 2008/0092926, previously presented)
Regarding Claim 9, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Geurkink further teaches a motor controller (Ref. 168, Fig. 1, [0010]) operatively engaged to said electric motor ([0010]). Geurkink as modified but fails to explicitly teach barcode reader in electronic communication with said motor controller. Kimball teaches a floor cleaning device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaners. Kimball further teaches a barcode reader (Ref. 309, Fig. 8) proximate to said opening (fig.8) in electronic communication with said motor controller ([0069] describes the barcode reader being able to relay information to the device such as cleaning time) and a barcode (Ref. 308, [0069]) positioned on an exterior surface thereof (Fig. 10), said barcode containing motor operation instructions which correlate to the additive supply held in said additive container, and said barcode reader communicating said motor operation instructions to said motor controller upon scanning said barcode ([0069] describes the barcode reader being able to relay information to the device such as cleaning time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the cleaning device and additive containers, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with a barcode and barcode reader proximate to said opening to adjust the electric motor, as taught by Kimball, to add the benefit of allowing automatic tailoring of cleaning solution and motor movements for specific types of stains/cleaning modes ([0069]).
Regarding Claim 10, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and Geurkink further teaches a motor controller (Ref. 168, Fig. 1, [0010]) operatively engaged to said electric motor ([0010]). Geurkink as modified but fails to explicitly teach barcode reader in electronic communication with said motor controller. Kimball teaches a floor cleaning device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaners. Kimball further teaches a barcode reader (Ref. 309, Fig. 8) proximate to said opening (fig.8) in electronic communication with said motor controller ([0069] describes the barcode reader being able to relay information to the device such as cleaning time) and a barcode (Ref. 308, [0069]) positioned on an exterior surface thereof (Fig. 10), said barcode containing motor operation instructions which correlate to the additive supply held in said additive container, and said barcode reader communicating said motor operation instructions to said motor controller upon scanning said barcode ([0069] describes the barcode reader being able to relay information to the device such as cleaning time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the cleaning device and additive containers, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with a barcode and barcode reader proximate to the opening to adjust the electric motor, as taught by Kimball, to add the benefit of allowing automatic tailoring of cleaning solution and motor movements for specific types of stains/cleaning modes ([0069]).
Regarding Claim 21, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Geurkink further teaches a fluid pump ([0011] describes the spray system (180) having a pump); and wherein a flow of the fluid supply from said tank through said fluid pump to said fluid jets is adjusted ([0011], examiner notes the term adjusted is interpreted as any stop or start of the fluid). Kimball further teaches the concept of the barcode being able to relay and control the cleaning device ([0069]). Therefore, give the teachings of Kimball, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the barcodes of the additive containers control the flow of fluid supply to improve the cleaning of surfaces by allowing automatic tailoring of cleaning solution and motor movements for specific types of stains/cleaning modes ([0069]).
Regarding Claim 22, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and Geurkink further teaches a fluid pump ([0011] describes the spray system (180) having a pump); and wherein a flow of the fluid supply from said tank through said fluid pump to said fluid jets is adjusted ([0011], examiner notes the term adjusted is interpreted as any stop or start of the fluid). Kimball further teaches the concept of the barcode being able to relay and control the cleaning device ([0069]). Therefore, give the teachings of Kimball, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the barcodes of the additive containers control the flow of fluid supply to improve the cleaning of surfaces by allowing automatic tailoring of cleaning solution and motor movements for specific types of stains/cleaning modes ([0069]).
Claims 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink as modified as applied to claims 1, 2 and 5 above, and further in view of Barber (US 4,961,243, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 11, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach second side of said pad having a plurality of fabric sections and said second side of said pad having smooth fabric areas forming recesses in between each of said plurality of fabric sections. Barber teaches a cleaning device with a cleaning pad and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of cleaning devices for cleaning a surface. Barber teaches a cleaning pad (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) with a second side of said pad (Fig. 1) having a plurality of fabric sections (Ref. 12&14, Fig. 1) located thereon; and
said second side of said pad having smooth fabric areas (Ref. 12, Fig. 1&2) forming recesses (Fig. 1) in between each of said plurality of fabric sections (Figs. 1&2), said smooth fabric areas include nylon ([col. 2, Line 18-29] describe nylon yarn used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second side of the pad, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with fabric areas, as taught by Barber, to more effectively pick up dirt from the floor ([Col. 1, Lines 47-49]).
Regarding Claim 12, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach second side of said pad having a plurality of fabric sections and said second side of said pad having smooth fabric areas forming recesses in between each of said plurality of fabric sections. Barber teaches a cleaning device with a cleaning pad and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of cleaning devices for cleaning a surface. Barber teaches a cleaning pad (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) with a second side of said pad (Fig. 1) having a plurality of fabric sections (Ref. 12&14, Fig. 1) located thereon; and
said second side of said pad having smooth fabric areas (Ref. 12, Fig. 1&2) forming recesses (Fig. 1) in between each of said plurality of fabric sections (Figs. 1&2), said smooth fabric areas include nylon ([col. 2, Line 18-29] describe nylon yarn used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second side of the pad, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with fabric areas, as taught by Barber, to more effectively pick up dirt from the floor ([Col. 1, Lines 47-49]).
Regarding Claim 15, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach second side of said pad having a plurality of fabric sections and said second side of said pad having smooth fabric areas forming recesses in between each of said plurality of fabric sections. Barber teaches a cleaning device with a cleaning pad and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of cleaning devices for cleaning a surface. Barber teaches a cleaning pad (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) with a second side of said pad (Fig. 1) having a plurality of fabric sections (Ref. 12&14, Fig. 1) located thereon; and
said second side of said pad having smooth fabric areas (Ref. 12, Fig. 1&2) forming recesses (Fig. 1) in between each of said plurality of fabric sections (Figs. 1&2), said smooth fabric areas include nylon ([col. 2, Line 18-29] describe nylon yarn used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second side of the pad, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with fabric areas, as taught by Barber, to more effectively pick up dirt from the floor ([Col. 1, Lines 47-49]).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink as modified as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Field (US 2005/0022844, previously presented) and Garcia (US 7,476,885).
Regarding Claim 16, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a light projector. Field teaches a floor cleaning device with cleaning pads and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Field teaches a cleaning device (Fig. 1) comprising
a light projector (Ref. 104, Fig. 2) having a body (Fig. 1 shows the light projector having a housing body);
connectors (Ref. 182, Fig. 2) for engaging said body to said frame (Fig. 2);
a plurality of light emitters (Ref. 120, Fig. 2, [0024]) positioned on said frame (Fig. 1), said light emitters powered by electric current ([0029] describes the power source of the emitters is an electric power supply); and
said light emitters projecting light therefrom in wavelengths in a range between 200nm to 470nm ([0019] describes the emitted wavelengths are between 240-260). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning device, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with the light emitter, as taught by Field, to allow for further sanitization of the cleaned surface ([0002]).
Geurkink as modified fails to explicitly teach a plurality of optical lenses, wherein an optical lens is positioned in front of each of the plurality of light emitters. Garcia teaches a floor cleaning apparatus with light emitters and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Garcia teaches a plurality of light emitters (Ref. 142C, fig. 5A) and a plurality of optical lenses (Ref. 147, Fig. 5A), wherein an optical lens is positioned in front of each of the plurality of light emitters (Fig. 5A, [Col. 9, Lines 24-29]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to add the optical lens, as taught by Garcia, to the plurality of light emitters, as taught by Geurkink, to prevent direct human contact with the light emitters and ensure there are no finger prints that may hinder the sanitization of the cleaned surface [ Col. 9, Lines 24-29].
Regarding Claim 17, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a light projector. Field teaches a floor cleaning device with cleaning pads and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Field teaches a cleaning device (Fig. 1) comprising
a light projector (Ref. 104, Fig. 2) having a body (Fig. 1 shows the light projector having a housing body);
connectors (Ref. 182, Fig. 2) for engaging said body to said frame (Fig. 2);
a plurality of light emitters (Ref. 120, Fig. 2, [0024]) positioned on said frame (Fig. 1), said light emitters powered by electric current ([0029] describes the power source of the emitters is an electric power supply); and
said light emitters projecting light therefrom in wavelengths in a range between 200nm to 470nm ([0019] describes the emitted wavelengths are between 240-260). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning device, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with the light emitter, as taught by Field, to allow for further sanitization of the cleaned surface ([0002]).
Geurkink as modified fails to explicitly teach a plurality of optical lenses, wherein an optical lens is positioned in front of each of the plurality of light emitters. Garcia teaches a floor cleaning apparatus with light emitters and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Garcia teaches a plurality of light emitters (Ref. 142C, fig. 5A) and a plurality of optical lenses (Ref. 147, Fig. 5A), wherein an optical lens is positioned in front of each of the plurality of light emitters (Fig. 5A, [Col. 9, Lines 24-29]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to add the optical lens, as taught by Garcia, to the plurality of light emitters, as taught by Geurkink, to prevent direct human contact with the light emitters and ensure there are no finger prints that may hinder the sanitization of the cleaned surface [ Col. 9, Lines 24-29].
Regarding Claim 18, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and Garcia further teaches said optical lenses focusing said light from said emitters into patterns (note examiner interprets a pattern as any shape or design) contacting said surface (Fig. 1 shows the light emitted even as a circle or rectangle would be a pattern on the floor) and said optical lenses project said patterns to overlap upon said surface (Fig. 1). If applicant intended for the pattern to be a specific design or shape such a limitation was not required.
Regarding Claim 19, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and Garcia further teaches said optical lenses focusing said light from said emitters into patterns (note examiner interprets a pattern as any shape or design) contacting said surface (Fig. 1 shows the light emitted even as a circle or rectangle would be a pattern on the floor) and said optical lenses project said patterns to overlap upon said surface (Fig. 1). If applicant intended for the pattern to be a specific design or shape such a limitation was not required.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink as modified as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Collier (US 4,485,519, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 20, Geurkink as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach an ozone supply communicating to the fluid jets. Collier teaches a cleaning device with fluid jets and a reservoir and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Collier teaches a cleaning device (Fig. 1) comprising an ozone supply (Ref. 21, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 22-23]) and said ozone supply communicated to said fluid jets (Ref. 49, Fig. 2) through said conduit (Ref. 47, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the floor cleaner, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with an ozone supply in communication with fluid jets, as taught by Collier, to provide further benefit of deodorizing the cleaned surface ([Col. 1, Lines 11-13]).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurkink (US 2012/0227765, previously presented) in view of Lee (US 5,765,250, previously presented) and Spangler (US 1,192,949, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 23, Geurkink teaches A floor cleaning and polishing apparatus (Ref. 100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (Ref. 140, Fig. 1) said frame having an electric motor (Ref. 150, Fig. 1&2, [0009-0010] describes using a motor and electric chord) thereon, said motor operatively connected to a planar pad driver (Ref. 200, fig. 2, [0009]);
an electric power supply (Ref. 170, Fig. 1, [0010]) for said motor ([0010] describes using an electric chord);
a first pair of wheels (Ref. 196&197, Fig. 1) engaged to a rearward side of said frame (140, right side of Fig. 1);
said planar pad driver having first cooperative fasteners (Ref. 210, Fig. 2, [0012]) thereon;
a pad (Ref. 130, Fig. 2, [0012]), said pad having a first side (See annotated Fig. 2 below) having second cooperative fasteners (Ref. 230, Fig. 2, [0013]) thereon which are engageable to said first cooperative fasteners (Fig. 2);
said pad having a second side (See annotated Fig. 2 below) for contacting a surface ([0009]);
a tank (Ref. 181, fig. 1, [0011]) having an interior cavity holding a fluid supply ([0011] describes the spray tank holding fluid) for communication through a conduit to fluid jets ((Ref. 183&184, Fig. 1, [0011]);
a handle (Ref. 165, Fig. 1, [0010]) with an engagement end of said handle (See annotated Fig. 1 below), said handle extending from said engagement end to a distal end (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
said handle having a stowed position (Fig. 1), extending at an angle substantially upright from said frame (Fig. 1);
a secondary wheel (Ref. 194, Fig. 1) movable with said handle ([0010-0011] describes the wheel as part of the frame which is attached to the handle and would be movable with the handle through the frame, examiner notes the term movable as movable in any direction), said secondary wheel engaged to a rotating axle (Ref. 195, Fig. 1,[0010]);
said secondary wheels rotatable upon said rotating axle from a retracted position (Fig. 1) to a deployed position ([0010-0011] describes the wheels are deployable in 10 degree increments and help support the tank (181));
said frame positionable to an elevated position (Fig. 1) supported upon said first pair of wheels (Fig. 1), by tilting frame with said handle while in said stowed position ([0010-0011], Fig. 1 shows that tilting the frame allows for the maneuvering of the system, examiner notes this limitation is interpreted as intended use and the frame would be capable of being tiltable); and
said frame position able to a cleaning position (Fig. 1) having a rotating contact of said second side of said pad with said surface (Fig. 1, [0009]).
Geurkink fails to explicitly teach a pair of secondary wheels. Lee teaches a floor cleaning device with a frame, motor, and tank and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a first pair of wheels (Ref. 15&16, Fig. 2) engaged to a rearward side of a frame (Ref. 13&14, Fig. 1) and a pair of secondary wheels (Ref. 19&20, Fig. 2) that are used to support a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the secondary wheel, as taught by Geurkink, to be a pair of secondary wheels, as taught by Lee, by duplication of parts since such a modification would yield the predictable result of supporting a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus and providing more stability to the apparatus.
Geurkink as modified further fails to teach the handle rotationally engaged to said frame, a lock wherein the lock maintains the handle in a stowed position, said handle having an operating position extending away from said rearward side of said frame and positioned above said first set of wheels. Lee teaches a floor cleaning device with a frame, motor, and tank and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a handle (Ref. 25, Fig. 1) rotationally engaged to a frame (Ref. 13 and 14, Fig. 1&3) at an engagement end of said handle (See annotated Fig. 1 below), said handle extending from said engagement end to a distal end (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
said handle having a stowed position (Fig. 5), extending at an angle substantially upright from said surface (Fig. 5);
a lock (Ref. 30&31, Fig. 3, [Col. 2, Line 16]), said lock for maintaining said handle in said stowed position ([Col. 2, Line 36-40]);
said handle having an operating position extending away from said rearward side of said frame and positioned above said first set of wheels (Ref. 15&16, Fig. 1 shows a range of positions of the handle including a position extending away from said rearward side of said frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the handle and frame, as taught by Geurkink, with the locking rotatable handle and having a stowed position and operating position, as taught by Lee, to adjust the handle to a different position to accommodate a user’s height or desired position ([Col. 1, Line 35-39]).
Given the teachings of the adjustable handle, as taught by Lee, Geurkink in view of Lee teaches a pair of secondary wheels (Ref. 194, Fig. 1, Geurkink) movable with said handle from said stowed position to said operating position ([0010-0011] describes the wheel as part of the frame which is attached to the handle and would be movable with the handle through the frame, examiner notes the term movable as movable in any direction, Geurkink),
said frame positionable to an elevated position (Fig. 1) supported upon said first pair of wheels (Fig. 1), by tilting frame with said handle while held by said lock in said stowed position ([0010-0011], Fig. 1 shows that tilting the frame allows for the maneuvering of the system, Geurkink, examiner notes this limitation is interpreted as intended use as once locked would be capable of tilting the whole frame);
said frame positionable to a cleaning position (Fig. 1, Geurkink) having a rotating contact of said second side of said pad with said surface (Fig. 1, [0009], Geurkink), by positioning said handle to said operating position (Fig. 1, Lee) and positioning said secondary wheels located to said deployed position ([0011], Geurkink).
Geurkink as modified teaches a switch (Ref. 168, Fig. 1) that can be actuated and depressed ([0010], fig. 1 shows the switch as a button to be pressed on/off) to control electric functions of the cleaner ([0010]). Geurkink as modified fails to explicitly teach said switch actuated to an open position interrupting said electric power supply to said motor by locating said handle to said stowed position and said switch actuated to a closed position communicating said electric power supply to said motor by said handle located to said operating position. Spangler teaches a floor cleaner with a switch and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Spangler teaches a floor cleaner comprising a switch (Ref. 27, Fig. 4) that can be actuated and depressed (Fig. 5-6, [Pg. 2, Lines 37-38] describe the switch as spring blades and are capable of being actuated and depressed); said switch actuated to an open position (Fig. 1) interrupting said electric power supply to said motor by locating said handle to said stowed position (Fig. 1, [Pg. 2, lines 73-88] describes the switch comes out of contact interrupting the circuit when the handle is a stowed position); said switch actuated to a closed position (Fig. 2) communicating said electric power supply to said motor by said handle located to said operating position and depressed (Fig. 2&6, [Pg. 2, Lines 73-88] describes the switch comes in contact complete the circuit when the handle is in an operating position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the actuatable and depressible switch, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with the switch that is actuated and depressed via the handle position, as taught by Spangler, to prevent the motor from running when not intended for use ([Pg. 1, Line 79-82]).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
861
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
603
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24, Geurkink teaches An apparatus for cleaning and polishing a floor surface (Ref. 100, Fig. 1) , the apparatus comprising:
a frame (Ref. 140, Fig. 1) said frame having an electric motor (Ref. 150, Fig. 1&2, [0009]) thereon, said motor operatively connected to a planar pad driver (Ref. 200, fig. 2, [0009]);
an electric power supply (Ref. 170, Fig. 1, [0010]) for said motor ([0010]);
a first pair of wheels (Ref. 196&197, Fig. 1) engaged to a rearward side of said frame (Fig. 1);
said planar pad driver having first cooperative fasteners (Ref. 210, Fig. 2, [0012]) thereon;
a pad (Ref. 130, Fig. 2, [0012]), said pad having a first side (See annotated Fig. 2 below) having second cooperative fasteners (Ref. 230, Fig. 2, [0013]) thereon which are engageable to said first cooperative fasteners (Fig. 2);
said pad having a second side (See annotated Fig. 2 below) for contacting a surface ([0009]);
a tank (Ref. 181, fig. 1, [0011]) having an interior cavity holding a fluid supply for communication through a conduit to fluid jets ((Ref. 183&184, Fig. 1, [0011]);
a handle (Ref. 165, Fig. 1, [0010]) with an engagement end of said handle (See annotated Fig. 1 below), said handle extending from said engagement end to a distal end (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
said handle having a stowed position (Fig. 1, left most position), extending at an angle substantially upright from said frame (Fig. 1);
a secondary wheel (Ref. 194, Fig. 1) movable with said handle ([0010-0011] describes the wheel as part of the frame which is attached to the handle and would be movable with the handle through the frame, examiner notes the term movable as movable in any direction), said secondary wheel engaged to a rotating axle (Ref. 195, Fig. 1,[0010]);
said secondary wheel rotatable upon said rotating axle from a retracted position (Fig. 1) to a deployed position ([0010-0011] describes the wheels are deployable in 10 degree increments and help support the tank (181));
said frame positionable to an elevated position (Fig. 1) supported upon said first pair of wheels (Fig. 1), by tilting frame with said handle while in said stowed position ([0010-0011], Fig. 1 shows that tilting the frame allows for the maneuvering of the system, examiner notes this limitation is interpreted as intended use and the frame would be capable of being tiltable);
said frame positionable to a cleaning position (Fig. 1) having a rotating contact of said second side of said pad with said surface (Fig. 1, [0009]) ; and
a switch (Ref. 168, Fig. 1, [0010]).
Geurkink fails to explicitly teach a pair of secondary wheels. Lee teaches a floor cleaning device with a frame, motor, and tank and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a first pair of wheels (Ref. 19&20, Fig. 2) engaged to a rearward side of a frame (Ref. 13&14, Fig. 1) and a pair of secondary wheels (Ref. 15&16, Fig. 2) that are used to support a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the secondary wheel, as taught by Geurkink, to be a pair of secondary wheels, as taught by Lee, by duplication of parts since such a modification would yield the predictable result of supporting a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus and providing more stability to the apparatus.
Geurkink fails to explicitly teach the handle rotationally engaged to said frame, a lock wherein the lock maintains the handle in a stowed position, an operating position, and said first pair of wheels having a default position that is elevated above said surface, and said frame position able to a cleaning position wherein said first pair of wheels are in said default position. Lee teaches a floor cleaning device with a frame, motor, and tank and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a first pair of wheels (Ref. 19&20, Fig. 1 and 2) engaged to a rearward side of said frame (Fig. 1), said first pair of wheels having a default position that is elevated above said surface;
a handle (Ref. 25, Fig. 1) rotationally engaged to said frame (Fig. 1&3) at an engagement end of said handle (See annotated Fig. 1 below), said handle extending from said engagement end to a distal end (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
said handle having a stowed position (Fig. 5), extending at an angle substantially upright from said surface (Fig. 5);
a lock (Ref. 30&31, Fig. 3, [Col. 2, Line 16]), said lock for maintaining said handle in said stowed position ([Col. 2, Line 36-40]) or other operational positions;
said handle having an operating position extending away from said rearward side of said frame and positioned above said first set of wheels (Fig. 1 shows a range of positions of the handle including a position extending away from said rearward side of said frame); and
said frame positionable to an elevated position supported upon said first pair of wheels, by tilting the frame with said handle while held by said lock in said stowed position (Fig. 5&6 show that when tilting the frame the wheels would supported on the first pair of wheels (15&16));
said frame positionable to a cleaning position (Fig. 1) having a rotating contact of said second side of said pad (Ref. 11, Fig. 1) with said surface (fig. 1), by positioning said handle to said operating position and positioning said secondary wheels located to said deployed position (Fig. 1), wherein said first pair of wheels are in said default position (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first wheels, the handle, and frame, as taught by Geurkink, with a default position, the locking rotatable handle and movable wheels, as taught by Lee, to adjust the handle to a different position to accommodate a user’s height or desired position ([Col. 1, Line 35-39]) and to ensure proper contact of the polishing plate to the surface.
Geurkink as modified teaches a switch (Ref. 168, Fig. 1) that can be actuated and depressed ([0010], fig. 1 shows the switch as a button to be pressed on/off) to control electric functions of the cleaner ([0010]). Geurkink as modified fails to explicitly teach said switch actuated to an open position interrupting said electric power supply to said motor by locating said handle to said stowed position and said switch actuated to a closed position communicating said electric power supply to said motor by said handle located to said operating position. Spangler teaches a floor cleaner with a switch and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Spangler teaches a floor cleaner comprising a switch (Ref. 27, Fig. 4) that can be actuated and depressed (Fig. 5-6, [Pg. 2, Lines 37-38] describe the switch as spring blades and are capable of being actuated and depressed); said switch actuated to an open position (Fig. 1) interrupting said electric power supply to said motor by locating said handle to said stowed position (Fig. 1, [Pg. 2, lines 73-88] describes the switch comes out of contact interrupting the circuit when the handle is a stowed position); said switch actuated to a closed position (Fig. 2) communicating said electric power supply to said motor by said handle located to said operating position and depressed (Fig. 2&6, [Pg. 2, Lines 73-88] describes the switch comes in contact complete the circuit when the handle is in an operating position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the actuatable and depressible switch, as taught by Geurkink as modified, with the switch that is actuated and depressed via the handle position, as taught by Spangler, to prevent the motor from running when not intended for use ([Pg. 1, Line 79-82]).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
861
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
603
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the drawing amendments have been considered and are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 September, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Geurkink and Lee. Examiner has applied Geurkink and Lee as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and has reinterpreted the prior art as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to Geurkink failing to teach a pair of secondary wheels is persuasive. Examiner has Geurkink in view of Lee as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above Geurkink teaches a secondary wheel (Ref. 194, Fig. 1) movable with said handle ([0010-0011] describes the wheel as part of the frame which is attached to the handle and would be movable with the handle through the frame, examiner notes the term movable as movable in any direction), said secondary wheel engaged to a rotating axle (Ref. 195, Fig. 1,[0010] describes the wheel as attached to the frame). Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a first pair of wheels (Ref. 15&16, Fig. 2) engaged to a rearward side of a frame (Ref. 13&14, Fig. 1) and a pair of secondary wheels (Ref. 19&20, Fig. 2) that are used to support a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the secondary wheel, as taught by Geurkink, to be a pair of secondary wheels, as taught by Lee, by duplication of parts since such a modification would yield the predictable result of supporting a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus and providing more stability to the apparatus.
Further applicant’s arguments that Geurkink fails to teach an operating position have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner has reinterpreted the Geurkink and Lee references as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Lee teaches Lee teaches a floor cleaning device with a frame, motor, and tank and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of floor cleaning devices. Lee teaches a flooring and cleaning polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a handle (Ref. 25, Fig. 1) rotationally engaged to a frame (Ref. 13 and 14, Fig. 1&3) at an engagement end of said handle (See annotated Fig. 1 above), said handle extending from said engagement end to a distal end (See annotated Fig. 1 above);
said handle having a stowed position (Fig. 5), extending at an angle substantially upright from said surface (Fig. 5); said handle having an operating position extending away from said rearward side of said frame and positioned above said first set of wheels (Ref. 15&16, Fig. 1 shows a range of positions of the handle including a position extending away from said rearward side of said frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the handle and frame, as taught by Geurkink, with the locking rotatable handle and having a stowed position and operating position, as taught by Lee, to adjust the handle to a different position to accommodate a user’s height or desired position ([Col. 1, Line 35-39]). Given the teachings of the adjustable handle, as taught by Lee, Geurkink in view of Lee teaches a pair of secondary wheels (Ref. 194, Fig. 1, Geurkink) movable with said handle from said stowed position to said operating position ([0010-0011] describes the wheel as part of the frame which is attached to the handle and would be movable with the handle through the frame, examiner notes the term movable as movable in any direction, Geurkink),
said frame positionable to an elevated position (Fig. 1) supported upon said first pair of wheels (Fig. 1), by tilting frame with said handle while held by said lock in said stowed position ([0010-0011], Fig. 1 shows that tilting the frame allows for the maneuvering of the system, Geurkink, examiner notes this limitation is interpreted as intended use as once locked would be capable of tilting the whole frame);
said frame positionable to a cleaning position (Fig. 1, Geurkink) having a rotating contact of said second side of said pad with said surface (Fig. 1, [0009], Geurkink), by positioning said handle to said operating position (Fig. 1, Lee) and positioning said secondary wheels located to said deployed position ([0011], Geurkink).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Spangler. Spangler teaches a floor cleaner comprising a switch (Ref. 27, Fig. 4) that can be actuated and depressed (Fig. 5-6, [Pg. 2, Lines 37-38] describe the switch as spring blades and are capable of being actuated and depressed); said switch actuated to an open position (Fig. 1) interrupting said electric power supply to said motor by locating said handle to said stowed position (Fig. 1, [Pg. 2, lines 73-88] describes the switch comes out of contact interrupting the circuit when the handle is a stowed position); said switch actuated to a closed position (Fig. 2) communicating said electric power supply to said motor by said handle located to said operating position and depressed (Fig. 2&6, [Pg. 2, Lines 73-88] describes the switch comes in contact complete the circuit when the handle is in an operating position). Examiner notes because the switch is described as a spring blade there is some depression of the spring blades when moved into contact in the closed position (Fig. 6).
Applicant's arguments filed 22 September, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to claims 21 and 22, that the prior art fails to teach the flow of the fluid supply is adjusted have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Geurkink to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Geurkink further teaches a fluid pump ([0011] describes the spray system (180) having a pump); and wherein a flow of the fluid supply from said tank through said fluid pump to said fluid jets is adjusted ([0011], examiner notes the term adjusted is interpreted as any stop or start of the fluid). Examiner notes that a flow of fluid supply being adjusted is broad and the pump preventing fluid flow or leaks as described by Geurkink as an adjustment of flow. If applicant intended for the flow of the fluid supply to be variable such a limitation is not required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hruby (2013/0042424), and Wood (4,658,459) teach floor cleaning devices that have handles and are wheeled around and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723