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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09/02/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, as required by claim 9, the elongated trough comprising a lower trough surface substantially parallel to the narrow lower surface and the side wall of the elongated trough substantially perpendicular to the lower trough surface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-14 are objected to because of the following antecedent basis informalities:
Claim 9, line 4, consider amending to, --surface, the elongated base
Claim 9, line 6, consider amending to, --a narrow lower surface, wherein [[the]]a distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow –
Claim 9, lines 8-9, consider amending to, --and an elongated trough set entirely within the wide upper surface a depth of 1/16” to 1/4” below the wide upper surface,--
Claim 9, line 14, consider amending to, --wherein the side wall of the elongated trough is substantially perpendicular to—
Claim 9, lines 18-19, consider amending to, --to the narrow lower surface of the elongated base plate, wherein each aperture is beveled at the narrow lower surface.—
Claim 10, consider amending to, --The extractor head of claim 9, wherein the distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface is approximately 0.34”.—
Claim 11, line 1, consider amending to, --The extractor head of claim 10, wherein the plurality of apertures range from—
Claim 12, consider amending to, --The extractor head of claim 11, wherein the elongated trough is 1/8” deep.
Claim 13, consider amending to, --The extractor head of claim 9, wherein the plurality of apertures are oval.—
Claim 14, consider amending to, --The extractor head of claim 9, wherein the plurality of apertures are circular.—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 was amended to recite the limitation, “wherein the elongated trough comprises a side wall extending around the elongated trough and a lower trough surface, wherein the lower surface is substantially parallel to the narrow lower surface of the elongated base plate, and wherein the side wall of the trough is substantially perpendicular to the lower trough surface and the narrow lower surface of the elongated base plate” which is not supported by applicant’s disclosure. In the Remarks filed on 09/02/2025, applicant asserts that support for the amendments are found within paragraphs [0030-0039] and [0044] of the originally filed specification. However, the disclosure only states the extractor head base plate has a flat upper surface and a flat lower surface. The disclosure does not explicitly disclose a structural relationship between the elongated trough and the flat lower surface of the elongated base of the extractor head, e.g. a lower trough surface parallel to the narrow lower surface of the elongated base and a side wall of the trough perpendicular to the lower trough surface and thereby, also perpendicular to the narrow lower surface, as required by the amended claim. Therefore, the recitation introduces New Matter, and it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 10-14 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a) since they are dependent on claim 9.
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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in lines 12 and 14 of claim 9 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. In claim 9, the lower trough surface and side wall of the elongated trough are indefinite by the use(s) of “substantially” in the claim. For examination purposes and as best understood from pp. [0030-0039] and figs. 14A-14B of instant disclosure (please refer to 35 USC 112(a) rejection above), the elongated trough extends from wide upper surface of elongated base to a portion above the narrow lower surface of elongated base.
The term “approximately” in line 2 of claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. In claim 10, the distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface of the elongated base is indefinite by the use of “approximately” in the claim. According to Dictionary.com, “approximately” is used to show that something is almost, but not completely, accurate or exact, i.e. roughly. Therefore, for examination purposes and as best understood from instant disclosure pp. [0030-0039], the distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface is approximately 0.34” if the value is between 0.32” and 0.38”.
Claims 11-14 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 9.
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.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarbera (US 2008/0196198) in view of Haynie (US Patent No. 6,266,892).
Regarding claims 9, as best understood, Labarbera (US 2008/0196198) discloses a cleaning machine extractor head (item 12; fig. 1) configured to withdraw fluid from a carpeted surface (Abstract and pp. [0018]), the extractor head comprising:
an elongated base plate (item 10; figs. 1-5) configured to be movably disposed on the carpeted surface (Abstract; base plate 10 is designed to move along surface of the carpet), the elongated base plate having
a cross section (figs. 2 and 4) with a wide upper surface (designated in annotated fig. 4 below),
a narrow lower surface (designated in annotated fig. 4 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
250
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4.
and an elongated trough (designated in annotated fig. 3 below) set entirely within the wide upper surface (figs. 2-4),
wherein the elongated trough comprises a sidewall (item 13; fig. 2) extending around the elongated trough and a lower trough surface (item 22; fig. 3),
wherein the lower trough surface is substantially parallel to the narrow lower surface of the elongated base plate (lower trough surface 22 is parallel to at least a portion of the narrow lower surface; figs. 2-4), and
wherein the sidewall of the elongated trough is substantially perpendicular to the lower trough surface and the narrow lower surface of the elongated base plate (sidewall 13 is perpendicular to lower surface trough surface 22 and thereby, to at least the portion of the narrow lower surface of elongated base; figs. 2-4); and
PNG
media_image2.png
265
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3.
a plurality of apertures (includes items 16, 20, 23; figs. 2-5) extending from the lower trough surface to the narrow lower surface of the elongated base plate (figs. 3-5; pp. [0012] and [0018]).
Labarbera does not explicitly disclose wherein the cross-section of the elongated base plate is a tapered cross-section. However, Labarbera discloses the profile, i.e. cross-section, of suction head is shown as being rounded (fig. 2), however other curved types may be utilized such as elliptical, parabolic, hyperbolic, etc. (pp. [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-section of the suction head to be a parabolic profile, i.e. tapering cross section from narrow lower surface to wide upper surface, since it has been held that unless a new and unexpected result is produced, a change of shape of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV-B).
Further, though Labarbera appears to disclose a curved profile at the lower surface of the apertures (item 16; figs. 3-4), Labarbera does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the apertures is beveled at the lower surface. However, Haynie (US Patent No. 6,266,892) teaches a cleaning extractor head (item 10; fig. 8) configured to suction carpeting, wherein the extractor head defines a plurality of apertures (items 22; fig. 8) therethrough, and a lower surface of the apertures is beveled (i.e. countersunk; col. 6, ll. 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the apertures, as disclosed in Labarbera, to be beveled at the lower surface, as taught in Haynie, in order to further minimize the risk of snagging the carpet fabric fibers and to assist in blending the stream of air that flows into each aperture (Haynie; col. 6, ll. 30-33).
Lastly, Labarbera does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface (designated in annotated fig. 4 above) is from 0.32” to 0.38” and wherein the elongated trough is set entirely within the wide upper surface at a depth of 1/16” to ¼” below the wide upper surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further select a distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface to be between 0.32” and 0.38”. The claimed dimension is recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the distance is smaller, the overall size of the elongated base may be smaller, thereby, capable of reaching into smaller crevices and having a lighter overall weight during use; while, if the distance is greater, the elongated base may be a greater size thereby, capable of reaching further into carpeted surfaces however, the extractor head may be of greater weight. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Labarbera in view of Haynie, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the distance to be between 0.32” and 0.38”. Further in the instant application, pp. [0027], [0035], and [0039], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (the distance may be within a range of 0.32” to 0.38”).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further select a depth of the elongated trough to be between 1/16” and ¼”. The claimed dimension is recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The depth of the elongated trough can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the depth is smaller, the length of the plurality of apertures may be greater which may be better for vacuuming heavier materials or liquids; while, if the depth is greater, the length of the plurality of apertures may be smaller thereby, allowing for higher airflow capacity, which can enhance vacuum performance but may restrict the suction power. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Labarbera in view of Haynie, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the depth to be between 1/16” and 1/4”. Further in the instant application, pp. [0037-0038], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (the depth may vary).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Labarbera as modified discloses the extractor head as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance from the upper surface to the lower surface is approximately 0.34”.
However, similarly to rejection of claim 9 above regarding the distance range (e.g. between 0.32” and 0.38”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further select a distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface to be approximately 0.34”. The claimed dimension is recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The distance from the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the distance is smaller, the overall size of the elongated base may be smaller/shorter, thereby, capable of reaching into smaller crevices and having a lighter overall weight during use; while, if the distance is greater, the elongated base may be a greater size/taller thereby, capable of reaching further into carpeted surfaces however, the extractor head may be of greater weight. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Labarbera in view of Haynie, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the distance to be approximately 0.34”. Further in the instant application, pp. [0027], [0035], and [0039], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (the distance may be within a range of 0.32” to 0.38”).
Additionally, as modified above in claim 9, the distance is between 0.32” and 0.38”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the distance of the wide upper surface to the narrow lower surface to be approximately 0.34” in an attempt to provide an improved cleaning method of extractor heads on carpeted surfaces and without any change in operation of the extractor head, as a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp.
Regarding claim 11, Labarbera as modified discloses the extractor head as claimed in claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of apertures range from 0.19” to 0.24” in length. However, Labarbera discloses the particular length of the elongated base may vary thereby, varying the amount and dimensions of the plurality of apertures along the elongated base (pp. [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further select the length of the plurality of apertures to be between 0.19” and 0.24”. The claimed dimension is recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above, since different sizes of apertures are acceptable with different lengths of suction head.
The length of the plurality of apertures can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the length of the apertures are smaller, the overall elongated base length may be smaller thereby, allowing for the extractor head to reach smaller crevices and areas to clean; while, if the length of the apertures are greater, the overall elongated base length may be greater thereby, allowing for larger materials and cleaning liquid to be suctioned through and collected. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Labarbera in view of Haynie, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the length of the plurality of apertures to be between 0.19” and 0.24”. Further in the instant application, pp. [0025], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Labarbera as modified discloses the extractor head as claimed in claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongated trough is 1/8” deep. However, as modified in claim 9 above, the elongated trough has a depth of between 1/16” to ¼”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the depth to be 1/8” in an attempt to provide an improved cleaning method of extractor heads on carpeted surfaces and without any change in operation of the extractor head, as a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. Further in the instant application, pp. [0037-0038], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (the depth may vary).
Regarding claim 13, Labarbera as modified discloses the extractor head as claimed in claim 9, wherein the plurality of apertures are oval (items 23 of the plurality of apertures are oval along bottom view cross-section; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Labarbera as modified discloses the extractor head as claimed in claim 9, wherein the plurality of apertures are circular (items 20 of plurality of apertures are circular in bottom view cross-section; fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As necessitated by the amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Labarbera (US 2008/0196198), and further in view of Haynie (US Patent No. 6,266,892), which is the same teaching reference from previous Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723