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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 03/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, and 13 under 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 a new interpretation of Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) in view of Alexander (US 20060222438 A1). The amended claim now requires the power head includes the cleaning fluid output, with the cleaning fluid output comprising a brush nozzle and a side nozzle. Burnett discloses a power head with a cleaning fluid output and a side nozzle, the cleaning fluid comprising a brush nozzle, but does not disclose this side nozzle is a part of the cleaning fluid output that it is a part of the cleaning head. Alexander discloses a similar cleaning apparatus with a spray mechanism, with multiple nozzles located in the power head. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to rearrange the location of the side nozzle to be on the power head, allowing for the spray to not require direction input from the user and insuring full coverage of the spray for the cleaning head.
Applicants remaining arguments regarding claims rejected under 103 are not found persuasive for the reasons outlined above.
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(s) 1, 3-8, 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) in view of Alexander (US 20060222438 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Burnett teaches A surface cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a handle (20 and 11 See Para [0016] “The wand 11 can act as an elongated shaft for facilitating manual gripping and manipulation of the device 10.”);
a power head (See Annotated Figure A) with a prime mover (32 is a motor);
an attachment head (30) having a cleaning attachment (34); and
a spray mechanism having a first fluid input (12a), a second fluid input (14a), and a cleaning fluid output (15 and 25), the spray mechanism comprises a mixing assembly (14) in fluid communication with the first fluid input, the second fluid input, and the cleaning solution output (See Para [0019] “The detergent reservoir can function as a proportioning system capable of receiving any number of commercially available cleaning solutions via the opening 14a and can act to store and mix the cleaning fluid with water supplied from the supply line 13. Once mixed, the resulting fluid can be sent to the spray nozzle 15 via the supply line 13.”).
the cleaning fluid output comprises at least a brush nozzle (15) and a side nozzle (25);
the brush nozzle is mounted below the prime mover (See Figure 1 and 2, 15 is located below 11 which 32 is mounted on top of) and configured to spray cleaning solution onto a surface in front of the cleaning attachment or directly onto the cleaning attachment (See Para [0020] “The spray nozzle 15 can be positioned near the bottom edge of the shaft 11 in order to supply the fluid from the reservoir to the brushes of the cleaning unit 30.”); and
wherein the side nozzle is mounted below the prime mover and laterally spaced apart from the brush nozzle (See Figure 2, 25 is mounted below 11 which 32 is mounted on top of, and is spaced apart from 15, the side nozzle is configured to spray cleaning solution onto the surface in front of the cleaning attachment or an adjacent surface (See Para [0023] “The rinse hose 25 and the adjustable spray nozzle 25a can allow a user to manually direct fresh water from the inlet unit 12 onto the object being washed”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the power head includes the cleaning fluid output and wherein the said cleaning fluid output comprises a brush nozzle and a side nozzle
However, Alexander discloses a similar surface cleaning device with a cleaning head, comprising multiple fluid outputs including a brush nozzle (center nozzle 45) and a side nozzle (Side nozzle 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify power head of Burnett in such a way that the side nozzle (25) was a part of the Power head as in order to increase spray coverage of the cleaning fluid during the cleaning operation without requiring operator intervention as advantageously described in Alexander Para [0020] “… a cross slit 51 in the downstream end of the spray nozzle 45 oriented parallel to the long axis of the spray head body 11 for discharging relatively flat spray patterns in partially overlapping in relation to each other such that a curtain of pressurized liquid having a lateral width corresponding at least the length of the spray head 11 is directed onto the floor surface to be cleaned as the spray head is moved along the floor. The spray nozzles 45 preferably are oriented for directing the discharging sprays forwardly of the spray head 11 for enabling the operator to observe the discharging spray patterns and to more effectively direct the pressurized curtain of cleaning liquid onto soiled areas of the floor.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
272
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (Figure 1 of Bennet)
Regarding Claim 3, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the cleaning fluid output (15) comprises at least a discharging bar (15) having holes (15a) arranged horizontally along a longitudinal length of the discharging bar (see Figure 2), thereby cleaning solution is discharged to the cleaning attachment (See Para [0020] “To this end, the spray nozzle can act to force the fluid through a series of openings 15a so as to create a uniform stream of water in a desired direction.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the first fluid input is a water inlet assembly comprising a hose dock (12a, see Para [0017] “To this end, the inlet unit 12 can be positioned on one end of the wand 11 and can be configured to mate with a conventional water hose (not shown) via the plurality of threaded grooves 12a imprinted on an inside portion thereof.”) and a control panel (control handle 20 and trigger 21 which is consistent with the control panel of applicants disclosure, further see Para [0021] “As shown, the control handle 20 can include a trigger 21 connecting to an internal mechanism 21a (such as a variable valve, for example) capable of regulating the amount of water flowing through the liquid supply line 13. Additionally, the trigger 21 can act to control the operation of the motorized cleaning unit 30 by acting as a switch for allowing power to be transferred from the power source 22 to the motor of the motorized cleaning unit 30 via the motor wire 23.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and in addition teaches wherein the control panel further comprises a lever that is rotatable along a circumference of the control panel (Trigger 21 is a lever rotatable along a circumferential direction) but does not explicitly teach that the lever is rotatable for selecting between a waterless mode, a water only mode, or a diluted detergent mode.
However, Burnett does teach that trigger can control the amount of water (See Para [0021] “a trigger 21 connecting to an internal mechanism 21a (such as a variable valve, for example) capable of regulating the amount of water flowing through the liquid supply line 13.”)
And further teaches an additional controller to control the ratio of detergent and water, (See Para [0019] “Additionally, the detergent reservoir 14 can include an integrated control unit 14b for allowing a user to select a desired ratio of cleaning solution and water. As reservoirs/proportioning systems of this type and their associated components are extremely well known in the art, no further description will be provided.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the control panel to allow a user to select between a waterless mode, water only mode, or a diluted detergent mode as doing so would give the user a greater degree of control over the cleaning process and to not waste detergent when cleaning a surface that may not require it.
Regarding Claim 6, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the mixing assembly is positioned at the handle (14 is positioned on handle 11, see Para [0016] and see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the second fluid input further comprises a detergent dock configured for attaching a detergent bottle (See Para [0019] “The detergent reservoir 14 can be secured to the shaft 11 and connected to the liquid supply line 13 as described above. The detergent reservoir can function as a proportioning system capable of receiving any number of commercially available cleaning solutions via the opening 14a and can act to store and mix the cleaning solutions with water supplied from the supply line 13”).
Regarding Claim 8, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitation of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the mixing assembly (14) is positioned along a tube assembly (11), wherein the tube assembly is arranged between the handle and the power head (see figure 1 and 2 showing the tube between the handle and the power head).
Regarding Claim 13, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the cleaning attachment (34) is at least partially covered by a guard (33) arranged between a left lateral end portion and a right lateral end portion of the power head (see Figure 1 of Burnett).
Regarding Claim 14, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach wherein the guard is attached to a rubber squeegee that is extended from a back side of the guard with an adjustable height for controlling a flow of cleaning solution on a surface.
However, Alexander teaches a similar cleaner with an attachable rubber squeegee (60) that is extended from a back side of a guard (65) with an adjustable height for controlling a flow of cleaning solution on a surface (See Para [0023] “In further carrying out the invention, the squeegee blade mounting structure 65 has a downwardly directed radiused or U-shaped connecting structure, preferably made of a flexible plastic material, which extends rearwardly and downwardly of the spray head 11 for enabling easy adjustment in the angle and pressure of the squeegee blade 61 against the floor surface by an operator using the water broom 10.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cleaner of Barnett to include a squeegee attached to the guard as doing so would both enhance the guard’s ability to protect the user from a spray of water and provide additional cleaning utility to the tool and the user of the tool.
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, in further view of Mighall (US 20180110601 A1) and Orubor (US 20110315790 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition teaches wherein: the mixing assembly (14) further comprises an integrated tank arranged in-line with the tube assembly (See Figure 2 14, is a detergent reservoir in line with the tube assembly); but does not explicitly teach a transparent window is provided on a wall of the integrated tank with volume indicators; and a hinged cap and a stopper are provided at top of the integrated tank or at front side of the integrated tank.
However, Mighall does teach a cleaning appliance with a reservoir with a transparent window (See Para [0015] “For example, the light emitting surface may comprise at least part of an inner wall of the reservoir, which is visible to a user through a transparent external window or wall of the reservoir.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention the reservoir of Burnett to have a window on the reservoir as doing so would allow the operator to have a visual indicator of the amount of detergent remaining, empowering the operator to more efficiently plan their cleaning.
Further, Orubor teaches a mixing chamber for fluids that includes a hinged cap and a stopper (20) provided at the top of the integrated tank (see figures 1 and 2) or at front side of the integrated tank.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the reservoir of Burnett to have a hinged cap and stopper on the top or side of the integrated cap to allow an operator to easily fill and seal the detergent reservoir and preventing any from being wasted during operation.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, and in further view of Maclean-Blevins (US 20190118202 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach wherein: the mixing assembly further comprises a venturi tube having a contraction section, a diffusion section, and a throat section; the contraction section is coupled to a first hose connecting to the first fluid input; the diffusion section is coupled to a second hose connecting to the cleaning fluid output; and the throat section is configured to draw detergent from the second fluid input using venturi effect, thereby water flowing through the venturi tube is mixed with the detergent to obtain diluted detergent.
However, MacLean-Blevins teaches a similar sprayer apparatus that utilizes a venturi tube (50) having a contraction section (See Figure 12A, area to the left of 50), a diffusion section (See Figure 12A, area to the right of 50), and a throat section (See Figure 12A, section at 50); the contraction section is coupled to a first hose (46) connecting to the first fluid input (48); the diffusion section is coupled to a second hose (54) connecting to the cleaning fluid output (41); and the throat section is configured to draw detergent from the second fluid input using venturi effect, thereby water flowing through the venturi tube is mixed with the detergent to obtain diluted detergent (See Para [0052] ”Flow tube assembly member 3 receives the carrier stream flow through venturi chamber 50 along with the injected concentrated liquid product flow through apertures 56 situated on flow tube assembly member 3.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnett to include a venturi tube as doing so would allow for Barnett to pull detergent into the water stream to dilute it for the cleaning operation, allowing the tool to function effectively and be more effective at cleaning.
Regarding Claim 11, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 10 but does not explicitly teach wherein the second hose has an inner diameter in a range between 7mm and 12mm, and an outer diameter in a range between 10.5mm and 16mm.
However, it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claim was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. There would be no change in functionality by having the claimed second hose diameter, and applicant does not assign a criticality to the claimed dimensions in the specification, stating only in Para [0069] “The hose 312 can have an inner diameter in a range between 5mm and 15mm, or in a range between 7mm and 12mm. The outer diameter of the hose 312 can be in a range between 9mm and 18mm, or in a range between 10.5mm and 16mm. In certain embodiments, the hose has an inner diameter of 7mm and an outer diameter of 10.5mm” as such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Barnett to have a second hose with the claimed dimensions.
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, in view of Maclean-Blevins (US 20190118202 A1) as modified in claim 10 and in further view of Maclean-Blevins2 (US 7866626 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 10 but does not explicitly teach wherein:
the control panel further comprises valves, a first outlet port and a second outlet port;
the first outlet port is coupled to a first inlet port of a Y-shape connector for
transporting water; and the second outlet port is coupled to a second inlet port of the T-shape connector via the venturi tube and a check valve.
However, MacLean-Blevins2 teaches a similar spraying apparatus compromising valves, a first outlet port and a second outlet port (1235 and 1346 respectively in Fig. 11).
The first outlet port (1235) is coupled to a first inlet port (1342) of a T-shaped connector for transporting water (see inlet 20 for hose connection); and
The second outlet port is coupled to a second inlet port (1348) of the T-shaped connector via the venturi tube (1346) and a check valve (admission port 231).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control panel of Barnett to include the connector of Maclean-Blevins2 as doing so would allow an operator to select between a mix mode that dispenses detergent or a rinse mode dispensing just water, as doing so would increase the utility and efficiency of the tool, allowing an operator to only use the necessary amount of detergent.
Claim(s) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, and in further view of Kane (US 9533331 B1)
Regarding Claim 15, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach further comprising a rotary knob for adjusting a flow of cleaning solution.
However, Kane does teach a similar sprayer apparatus that does include a knob (106) for adjusting a flow of cleaning solution (Col 2 Line 36-39 “In some embodiments, the mixing knob 106 may be utilized, as described herein, to variably and/or selectively direct the fluid flow (and/or portions thereof) within the hand-held solid chemical applicator assembly 100.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of invention to modify Barnett to include Kane to include a knob to modify the flow as doing so would allow the operator to more finely control the output of the cleaner, increasing the efficiency of the tool.
Claim(s) 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, and in further view of Kress (US 20200129031 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches but does not explicitly teach further comprising a side brush attachable to a side of the cleaning attachment that is perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the cleaning attachment, thereby the side brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction.
However, Kress teaches a brush assembly (1) that includes a side brush (50.1) attachable to a side of the cleaning attachment (via 70, see figure 4b) that is perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the cleaning attachment, thereby the side brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction (see attachment via 70 in figures 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the brush of Barnett to have an attachable brush portion perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the cleaning attachment as doing so would allow to clean the areas close to the edge of the brush or to utilize different bristles to increase the utility of the cleaner (See Para [0030] of Kress).
Regarding Claim 17, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches but does not explicitly teach
wherein the cleaning attachment comprises a brush head and a circular side brush attachable to the brush head, which is coupled to the power head for transferring a torque such that the circular side brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction.
However, Kress teaches wherein the cleaning attachment comprises a brush head (100.2) and a circular side brush (50.1) attachable to the brush head (attached via 50.1 See figure 4b), which is coupled to the power head (100.1) for transferring a torque such that the circular side brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction (See Figure 4b, 50.1 is attached and rotates with 100.1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the brush of Barnett to have an attachable brush portion perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the cleaning attachment as doing so would allow to clean the areas close to the edge of the brush or to utilize different bristles to increase the utility of the cleaner (See Para [0030] of Kress).
Claim(s) 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, and in further view of Kress (US 20200129031 A1) and Cutler (US 20110085845 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach
wherein the cleaning attachment comprises a brush head and a dome-shaped brush attachable to the brush head, which is coupled to the power head for transferring a torque such that the dome-shaped brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction.
And Kress teaches a similar brushing apparatus wherein the cleaning attachment comprises a brush head (100.2) and a second brush attachable (50.1) to the brush head (attached via 70), which is coupled to the power head for transferring a torque such that the dome-shaped brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction (See Figure 4b, 50.1 is attached and rotates with 100.1).
But Burnett as modified by Kress does not teach the second brush being dome shaped.
However, Cutler does teach a brush apparatus with several possible shapes, including a dome shaped brush (see Fig. 3c).
It has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found obvious, as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the second brush to be dome shaped. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, in view of Kress (US 20200129031 A1) and Cutler (US 20110085845 A1) as modified in claim 18 and in further view of Belcastro (US 20050066458 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitation of claim 18 But does not explicitly teach
wherein the dome-shaped brush further comprises an inner dome, a plurality of bristles arranged circumferentially around the inner dome, and a roller ball supported by a socket which is mounted on top of the inner dome.
However, Belcastro teaches a similar shaped brush apparatus that includes a plurality of bristles (40) an inner portion (45), and a roller ball (26) supported by a socket (connection between 45 and 26) mounted on top of the inner portion (See Figure 1.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the brush of Burnett to include a rotatable ball and socket joint to allow for the brush to pivot and swivel as necessary to seamlessly contour to oddly shaped surfaces to allow for effective cleaning. See Para [0019] “A bristle brush 30 is detachably coupled in any appropriate manner to the swivel 26 so as to be rotatable with respect thereto.” And [0020] “For cleansing any of them, the swivel 26 to which the bristle brush 30 couples are fixedly adjustable in position (as at 50) to angularly orient the plane of rotation of the brush so as to allow scrubbing of these surfaces most efficiently--orienting the plane of rotation with respect to the length of the handle 16 either horizontally, vertically, or at one or more of a series of angles in-between”.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, and in further view of Hilliard (US 20170112269 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of 1 and but does not explicitly teach
comprising a rotatable joint, wherein the power head and the attachment head at a horizontal state are rotatable clockwise by 90 degrees to a vertical state using the rotatable joint.
However, Hilliard teaches a similar cleaner comprising a rotatable joint (50), with a head (36), at a horizontal state are rotatable clockwise by 90 degrees (See Para [0019] “The housing 36 is attached to the handle via a joint 50 that allows the housing 36 to pivot or swivel relative to the handle. Preferably, the joint 50 comprises a ball and socket joint so as to allow for rotation in 360 degrees.”) to a vertical state using the rotatable joint.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a rotatable joint connected to the power and attachment heads to allow for rotation as doing so would allow for the head to contour to angle surfaces and more easily clean various areas (See Para [0019] “This allows the brush head to contour to angle surfaces and more easily clean various areas.”).
Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, in view of Hilliard (US 20170112269 A1) as modified in claim 20 and in further view of Kress (US 20200129031 A1) and Cutler (US 20110085845 A1).
Regarding 21 Burnett as modified teaches all limitations of claim 20, But does not explicitly teach
wherein the cleaning attachment comprises a brush head and a dome-shaped brush attachable to the brush head, which is coupled to the power head for transferring a torque such that the dome-shaped brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction.
And Kress teaches a similar brushing apparatus wherein the cleaning attachment comprises a brush head (100.2) and a second brush attachable (50.1) to the brush head (attached via 70), which is coupled to the power head for transferring a torque such that the dome-shaped brush allows brushing of a surface in a lateral direction (See Figure 4b, 50.1 is attached and rotates with 100.1).
But Burnett as modified by Kress does not teach the second brush being dome shaped.
However, Cutler does teach a brush apparatus with several possible shapes, including a dome shaped brush (see Fig. 3c).
It has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found obvious, as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the second brush to be dome shaped. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Claim(s) 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (US 20120189372 A1) and Alexander (US 20060222438 A1) as modified in claim 1, in view of Hilliard (US 20170112269 A1) as modified in claim 20 and in further view of Kress (US 20200129031 A1) and Cutler (US 20110085845 A1) as modified in claim 21 and in further view of Belcastro (US 20050066458 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Burnett as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and in addition teaches but does not explicitly teach
wherein the dome-shaped brush further comprises an inner dome, a plurality of bristles arranged circumferentially around the inner dome, and a roller ball supported by a socket which is mounted on top of the inner dome.
However, Belcastro teaches a similar shaped brush apparatus that includes a plurality of bristles (40) an inner portion (45), and a roller ball (26) supported by a socket (connection between 45 and 26) mounted on top of the inner portion (See Figure 1.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the brush of Burnett to include a rotatable ball and socket joint to allow for the brush to pivot and swivel as necessary to seamlessly contour to oddly shaped surfaces to allow for effective cleaning. See Para [0019] “A bristle brush 30 is detachably coupled in any appropriate manner to the swivel 26 so as to be rotatable with respect thereto.” And [0020] “For cleansing any of them, the swivel 26 to which the bristle brush 30 couples are fixedly adjustable in position (as at 50) to angularly orient the plane of rotation of the brush so as to allow scrubbing of these surfaces most efficiently--orienting the plane of rotation with respect to the length of the handle 16 either horizontally, vertically, or at one or more of a series of angles in-between”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723