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 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: cleaning unit, handle unit, and sterilization unit in claim 1. Examiner notes that the terms “tank unit” and “filter unit” are also recited, but the terms “tank” and “filter” represent sufficient structure to obviate a 112(f) interpretation.
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.
The specification at [16] indicates that the “sterilization unit” includes a sterilization tank and ultrasonic sterilization module. At [18] it indicates that “cleaning unit” includes an inclined surface to form a washing groove and a drain. And at [20] it indicates that “handle unit” includes an extending portion and protrusion module for spraying of water. Further, as per the aforementioned 112(f) interpretation, equivalents thereof are also considered.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 102302456 B1) in view of Zou et al (CN 107320036 B), Iida et al (JP 2021186739 A), and Gao (CN 203112643 U), optionally in view of Corbosiero (US PGPub 2005/0013652 A1).
Machine Translations of Zou, Iida, and Gao are provided with this action.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a mobile cleaning device for cleaning an object such as a mop, including a main body with a frame and supporting wheels, a tank unit (300) to be filled with washing water, a cleaning unit (400) attached to the frame which includes an inclined surface for washing the object, as well as a drain line connection (700) for draining water that has been used in washing. There is further provided a filter unit (500) for filtering water which is passing from the cleaning unit drain to return to the tank. See Figures and pgs. 15-17 of the translation provided by applicant.
Lee is silent to the presence of a partition in which the tank is provided on one side, and the cleaning unit on another; Lee is further silent to a handle unit with a protrusion and spray head or the like, instead teaching a water injection hole (430) in the cleaning unit; Lee is further silent to a sterilization unit employing ultrasonic sterilization. Finally, Lee does not specify that the cleaning unit is detachable; however, see MPEP 2144.04 V.C; making parts separable is an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the positioning of a tank and cleaning unit relative to a partition, as well as to the structure of a handle unit for spraying water via a projecting feature, see Zou, which teaches an automatic cleaning machine for a mop or the like [Abs]. The mop is cleaning in a cleaning tank (11) positioned on one side of the device, below which are provided spaces for fractions of various purity, and a cleaning fluid tank (19) is provided on the other side of the device via suitable partitions [Fig. 1, 0018, 0028]. Water for cleaning is provided by a water inlet pipe (4) which is provided in a structure similar to a faucet, which is capable of being rotated around a vertical axis [0017] so that it can be rotating into place for filling the cleaning space during cleaning, and can be rotated out of the way when not in use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s taught mobile washing device to feature a partition within the body to separate clean fluid from e.g. lower quality fluid from different cycles, as discussed by Zou, to more efficiently manage cleaning fluid. Similarly, it would have been obvious to modify Lee’s taught device to include a faucet-type water spray element to allow for it to be adjusted as needed to efficiently direct water when in use and to move out of the way when not in use.
Alternatively regarding the claimed handle unit, Lee already teaches a dewatering unit (460) which has substantially the same broad structure as the instant claimed unit in terms of providing a handle, protrusions, etc. which is designed to be used for cleaning and dewatering of the object to allow brushing, scrubbing, and the like to occur when cleaning [Fig. 11, pgs. 26-27] but is silent to the use of this item to also dispense water to spray the mop or otherwise fill the cleaning unit. However, Corbosiero teaches a portable cleaning device with a storage tank for cleaning fluid and a sprayer which is contained within a brush to allow for spraying and scrubbing of the object to be cleaned [Abs]. It would have been obvious to integrate the dewatering unit (460) with the cleaning fluid source in Lee’s taught system to allow for spraying during scrubbing or the like and, in general, greater control of the spraying from the user’s perspective by way of a convenient handle device already present in Lee’s taught system, in a manner similar to that suggested by Corbosiero.
Regarding the provision of a sterilization unit for ultrasonic cleaning of the water being drained from the cleaning unit, see Iida and Gao. Gao teaches wastewater recycling [0002] and teaches that a water storage tank is connected to a disinfection tank, where such disinfection tank is provided with an ultrasonic generator [0006]. Iida teaches a cleaning device for cleaning of surfaces and teaches that ultrasonic cavitation can be used to generate bubbles in the cleaning liquid [0022] for sterilization purposes. It would have been obvious to provided a similar arrangement for sterilization of water streams in Lee’s taught device by employing ultrasonic cavitation in e.g. a disinfection tank to generate bubbles therein and sterilize the water before feeding it to the storage tank, as suggested by Gao and Iida.
The claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the proposed combinations.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
477
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the filter unit e.g. (500) of Lee is below the cleaning unit to receive drainage by gravity or the like. Providing it below the sterilization unit would have been obvious as a way to ensure that solids or the like removed by the filter are not dropped to subsequent process steps e.g. the disinfection tank; further, see MPEP 2144.04 VI.A and VI.C; reversal or rearrangement of parts are generally obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, at least Gao teaches multiple pumps (11) for feeding from the storage tank (10) in multiple manners, and also for connecting to the sterilization tank (9) [Fig. 1]. Providing suitable pumps to move fluid in appropriate would have been an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, especially (as discussed above) when relative vertical positioning is employed.
With respect to claim 4, as above the provision of a tank and ultrasonic generator for sterilization would have been obvious in view of Iida and Gao, to provide cavitation for sterilization purposes.
With respect to claim 6, as above Lee teaches a cleaning unit with a body having an open upper portion, and inclined surface, and a water drain.
With respect to claim 8, as above the provision of a faucet-style protrusion and handle structure for the spraying element would have been obvious in view of Zou.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Zou et al, Corbosiero, Iida et al, and Gao.
See the alternative interpretation regarding the handle unit as discussed in claim 1, and the discussion of Corbosiero. Providing Lee’s taught dewatering device which already features cleaning and dehydration protrusions, and connecting it with a suitable hose and providing a suitable holder in the frame, would have been obvious in view of Corbosiero as a way to efficiently combine spraying and scrubbing or the like, or to otherwise conveniently provide control of the spraying via user-handling.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Zou et al (optionally in view of Corbosiero), Iida et al, and Gao, further in view of Lee ‘590 (KR 102195590 B1).
A machine translation of Lee ‘590 is provided with this action.
Lee teaches a filter (500) for receiving drainage from the cleaning unit which may include a filter detachably mounted in an appropriate position, in a manner that may be detachable e.g. to facilitate replacement [pgs. 27-28]. Lee is silent to providing two separate filters in series, where the second filter is finer than the first filter.
However, Lee ‘590 teaches a similar cleaning device for mops or the like [0001] and teaches that water from a receiving unit (300) i.e. water which has been used for washing [0037] may pass through a filter (310) for primary filtering when being received [0097], and that this is preferably in the form of several layers of mesh net which progressively decrease in size from top to bottom [0098] to allow sequential filtration [0099], which may be separately detachable for easy replacement [0101-0102].
It would have been obvious to provide this same multi-mesh structure in Lee’s filter (500) to allow for sequential filtration and removal of substances from the cleaning unit.
PNG
media_image3.png
368
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777