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 .
This Office action is in response to amendments filed on 04/21/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending; claims 1-8 and 15-18 are withdrawn; and claims 9-14 are rejected. The previously filed drawing objections, 35 USC 112(a) new matter rejections, and 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, as necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claim 10 recites the distance dimension is 0.34” but claim 9, from which it depends, claims the distance to be 1/3”. Therefore, claim 10 no longer requires the distance dimension of claim 9, which is 1/3”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. In this case, applicant may cancel claim 10 or amend either claim 9 or claim 10 to resolve the dimension discrepancy. In the interest of compact prosecution and for purposes of this Office action, Examiner interprets the identified distance in claim 9 to be from 1/3” to 0.38”.
Claims 11-12 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(d) since they are dependent on claim 10.
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, 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),
a plurality of apertures (includes items 16, 20, 23; figs. 2-5) extending from the elongated trough surface to the narrow lower surface of the elongated base plate (figs. 3-5; pp. [0012] and [0018]).
PNG
media_image2.png
265
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3.
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 1/3” to 0.38” (as interpreted from 35 USC 112(d) rejection above) 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 from 1/3” to 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 from 1/3” to 0.38”. Further in the instant application, pp. [0027], [0035-0036], and [0039], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (the distance may be approximately 1/3”, the distance may be within a range of 0.32” to 0.38”, etc.).
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, 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 0.34”.
However, similarly to rejection of claim 9 above regarding the distance (e.g. from 1/3” to 0.38”, as interpreted from 35 USC 112(d) rejection above), 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 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 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 approximately 1/3”, the distance may be within a range of 0.32” to 0.38”, etc.).
Additionally, as modified above in claim 9, the distance is from 1/3” to 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 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. 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 1/8”. 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 1/8”. 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 they are addressing newly amended claim limitations, as compared to the rejection of record. Upon further consideration and 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 are the same primary and teaching reference(s) from previous Non-Final Rejection filed on 10/21/2025.
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 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
Prosecution Insights