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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: second drive mechanism in claims 1, 4, and 37 (corresponds to a manual crank, paragraph [0074]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 37 depends on claim 3, however claim 3 has been cancelled in the amendment of 12 December 2025. The examiner is treating claim 37 as depending upon claim 1 (the limitation of previous claim 3 is now incorporated into claim 1). 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 40-41, 44, and 46-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US 4,317,247 in view of Hawkins et al., US 9,499,374 and in further view of Rutkowski et al., 6,158,076.
Regarding claim 40, Levine discloses a drain cleaner comprising a drum rotatable about an axis of rotation (13, axis of rod 24, see Figures 2-3); a nose assembly extending forwardly of the drum (11); a cable housed within the drum (18, 18b; Figure 2) and extendable through the nose assembly (Figures 1-2); a first drive mechanism configured to drive rotation of the drum (first drive mechanism includes the circular disc 23 having a boss 23b that receives rod 24, rod 24 is received in chuck 38 of drill 37; Figures 1-2; additionally the first drive mechanism is also a quick release mechanism in that it receives the rod and drill without additional tools needed; column 2 lines 50-61), the first drive mechanism driven by an external motor (driven by a drill motor, 37, Figure 1), and a second drive mechanism configured to drive rotation of the drum (17), the second drive mechanism manually driven by an operator (column 2 lines 22-24, 37-39). Regarding claim 47, the second drive mechanism is offset from the axis of rotation (Figure 1).
Levine fails to disclose that the second drive mechanism is coupled to the drum and pivotable between a stowed position and an operational position, that the second drive mechanism includes a crank arm and a handle extending from the crank arm, the handle rotatable relative to the crank arm about an axis that is normal to a surface of the crank arm that supports the handle such that the handle spins relative to the crank arm as the second drive mechanism rotates the drum.
Hawkins et al., with respect to claim 40, teach a reel having a drum rotatable about an axis of rotation (206 or 1406) and a drive mechanism configured to drive rotation of the drum (includes 228, see column 6 lines 7-11; alternatively includes 1428), the drive mechanism manually driven by an operator (column 6 lines 7-11), the drive mechanism coupled to the drum and pivotable between a stowed position and an operation position (stowed position in Figures 2, 10, and 12-13, operation position in Figures 3, 11, and 14), the drive mechanism including a crank arm (crank arm of 228; or unlabeled arm of 1428 in Figure 14) and a handle extending from the crank arm (332 or 1429). Regarding claim 41, the drive mechanism is pivotable about a pivot axis that is separate from the axis of rotation of the drum (axis of axle 230, see Figures 2-3 and 10-13). Regarding claim 44, the drive mechanism is biased to a stowed position so that it is secured for storage (via 553, see column 10 lines 38-43). Regarding claim 46, the drum includes a recess on a rear wall (348, Figure 3; alternatively 1460, Figure 14), wherein the drive mechanism is received within the recess within the stowed position (Figures 2, 10, and 12-14). Regarding claim 47, like Levine, the drive mechanism is offset from the axis of rotation (see Figures). Regarding claim 48, within the operational position, a portion of the second drive mechanism extends radially beyond a circumference of the drum (Figures 3 and 11) so that it provides a moment arm to leverage force exerted by a user when winding the crank arm (column 6 lines 57-64). Regarding claim 49, the surface of the crank arm is a first flat surface and the crank arm includes a second flat surface opposite the first flat surface configured to provide ergonomic gripping (see upper and lower surfaces of 218 in Figures 2-5 and 10-13).
Hawkins et al. describe the handle is being positioned along an axis that is normal to a surface of the crank arm that supports the handle (axis of 332, see Figures), but does not disclose that the handle is rotatable relative to the crank arm about the axis that supports the handle such that the handle spins relative to the crank arm as the second drive mechanism rotates the drum.
Rutkowski et al. teach a drain cleaner that has an offset drive mechanism (32) similar to that of Levine and Hawkins et al., the offset drive mechanism is to drive rotation of a drum (14), the offset drive mechanism manually driven by an operator (column 4 lines 27-29), the drive mechanism further includes a handle (36) that is rotatable about an axis (axis of 34, see Figure 3) such that the handle spins relative to the crank arm as the drive mechanism rotates the drum (column 4 lines 30-34, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second drive mechanism of Levine for one that is coupled to the drum and pivotable between a stowed position and an operational position, and includes a crank arm and a handle extending in a normal direction from a surface of the crank arm, as taught by Hawkins et al., so that the second drive mechanism can be stowed in a secure manner when not in use and also extend from the drum to provide a moment arm to leverage force exerted by a user when in the operational position, and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle of Levine and Hawkins et al. so that it is rotatable about an axis that supports the handle such that the handle spins relative to the crank arm as the second drive mechanism rotates the drum, as taught by Rutkowski et al., to allow for free motion of the handle.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US 4,317,247, Hawkins et al., US 9,499,374, and Rutkowski et al., 6,158,076.
Levine, Hawkins et al., and Rutkowski et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above. Levine and Rutkwoski et al. do not describe the second drive mechanism flush mounted to the drum. The main embodiment relied upon in Hawkins et al. does not describe the drive mechanism as being flush mounted to the drum, however does in the embodiment of Figure 14. Regarding claim 45, Hawkins et al. describes the drive mechanism as flush mounted to the drum in the stowed position (Figure 14) so that it does not snag or catch on objects in the environment it is being used (column 13 lines 31-45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second drive of Levine, Hawkins et al., and Rutkowski et al. so that it is flush mounted when in the stowed position, as additionally taught by Hawkins et al., so that the drive mechanism dos not snag, catch, or get caught in nearby objects during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 38-39 are allowed. As stated previously, claim 37 is objected to for minor informalities.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the drain cleaner of claims 1-2, 4-7, and 37-39. The applicant’s arguments of 12 December 2025 relating to claims 1-2, 4-7, and 37-39 have been found to be persuasive. None of the prior art made of record, including Levine (US 4,317,247) teach the drain cleaner comprising the limitations of claim 1 wherein a portion of a rear wall surrounding a bore extends rearwardly from a drum at a greater distance than a second drive mechanism, when the second drive mechanism is in a stowed position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 40-41 and 44-49 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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 at 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 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg