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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 01/12/2026, claims 1-16 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
In response to the drawing objection made in the previous non-final office action dated on 09/10/2025, Applicant has submitted the replacement drawing of fig. 9A. Therefore, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, the preamble may be amended as “The floor cleaning machine of claim [[15]]12, wherein …” In response to the 112(b) rejection made in the previous non-final office action dated on 09/10/2025, Applicant states in Applicant Arguments/Remarks that claim 16 has been amended to depend from claim 12 as suggested by Examiner, but no amendment has been made. If the dependency is amended, the antecedent basis of the terms “the pre-loading element” and “the main operating direction” need to be amended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a locking assembly that is movable between …” in claim 9.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-19, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung (US 2019/0099052).
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a floor cleaning machine (fig. 1 rotary mop cleaner) having
a base (fig. 1, body 1), and
a control handle (fig. 1, stick 2; ¶ 0045, the stick may be provided with a handle),
wherein the base has a cleaning element assembly having at least one driven cleaning element on which at least one engagement element is provided (fig. 1 and ¶ 0068, the body of the cleaner has a cleaning element assembly comprising a rotary plate 5 [corresponds to the recited engagement element], and a mop [corresponds to the recited driven cleaning element] may be attached to the rotary plate. The rotary plate rotates, therefore, the mop would be driven to rotate),
wherein the cleaning element, by way of the at least one engagement element provided thereon, is configured to engage with a floor area to be cleaned (¶ 0068, the mop attached to the rotary plate 5 is brought into contact with the floor surface and wipes the surface),
wherein the control handle extends along a longitudinal axis between a proximal end and an activation end, and by way of a joint is attached to the base so as to be pivotable in such a manner that the control handle can be pivoted in arbitrary directions in relation to the base (see annotated Chung fig. 3 below for the control handle disposed as recited; ¶ 0043, the stick 2 [corresponds to the recited control handle] is pivotable and tiltable in relation to the body 1 [corresponds to the recited base] of the cleaner),
wherein the joint has a first joint element having an envelope that is in a shape of a ball socket, and a second joint element (annotated Chung fig. 3 below, a joint has a hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element], which is ball socket shaped, and a ball support 111 and a ball cover 6 form a second joint element),
wherein the first joint element is received in the second joint element and supported in the second joint element in such a manner that the first joint element in relation to the second joint element is pivotable about a fulcrum which is stationary in terms of the second joint element and coincides with the center of the envelope, and that a center of the envelope is non-displaceable relative to the second joint element (annotated Chung fig. 3 below, the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element] is received in the ball support 111 and the ball cover 6 [corresponds to the recited second joint element]; ¶ 0048, the hollow ball 31 disposed at an end of the stick 2 is pivotable. Because the hollow ball 31 is seated in the ball support 111, a center of the hollow ball 31 is stationary and is considered as a fulcrum for pivoting),
wherein provided on one of the first and the second joint elements are at least two grooves that run in an arcuate manner, are open toward the envelope and extend along the envelope (annotated Chung fig. 3 below, accommodation portions 111a of the ball support 111 [corresponds to the recited second joint element] are formed as grooves. They are open to the envelope of the hollow ball 31, and they extend along the hollow ball 31 to receive it), and provided on the other one of the first and the second joint elements are at least one first engagement part and one second engagement part, wherein the first engagement part extends into the first one of the grooves, and the second engagement part extends into the second one of the grooves (fig. 4 and annotated Chung fig. 3 below, the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element] has two engagement projections 34 [correspond to the recited first and second engagement parts] extending into the accommodation portions 111a [correspond to the recited grooves] of the ball support 111),
wherein the first joint element is attached to one of the base and the proximal end of the control handle, and the second joint element is attached to the other one of the base and the proximal end of the control handle (fig. 2 and annotated Chung fig. 3 below, the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element] disposed at the proximal end of the stick 2 [corresponds to the recited control handle]. The ball support 111 [corresponds to the recited second joint element] is attached to the body 1 [corresponds to the recited base]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1028
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Chung Fig. 3
Regarding claim 2, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the grooves in terms of the center of the envelope are disposed so as to be diametrically opposite on one of the first and the second joint elements (see annotated Chung fig. 3 above, the grooves are disposed in opposite positions on the ball support 111 [corresponds to the recited second joint element]).
Regarding claim 3, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first and the second engagement part are disposed so as to be diametrically opposite in a central plane that runs through the center of the envelope and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the control handle (fig. 4 and annotated Chung fig. 3 above, the engagement projections 34 [correspond to the first and second engagement parts] are disposed at opposite positions on the hollow ball 31 perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the handle).
Regarding claim 5, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the second joint element has a circular receptacle opening having a diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the envelope (annotated Chung fig. 3 above, the ball support 111 [corresponds to the recited second joint element]) has an opening to receive the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element]; annotated Chung fig. 5 below, the opening appears to be smaller than a diameter of the hollow ball 31).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Chung Fig. 5
Regarding claim 8, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first joint element is attached to the base, and the second joint element is attached to the proximal end of the control handle (fig. 2, when the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element] is seated in the ball support 111, the hollow ball 31 is attached to the body 1 [corresponds to the recited base] of the cleaner, and the ball support 111 and the ball cover 6 [corresponds to the recited second joint element] are attached to the proximal end of the stick 2 [corresponds to the recited control handle]).
Regarding claim 9, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the joint has a locking assembly (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The locking assembly may comprise a receptacle clearance and a latch element (¶ 0022-25)) that is movable between a releasing position and a locking position, wherein the second joint element is pivotable about the first joint element when the lock assembly is in the releasing position, and wherein the second joint element is not pivotable about the first joint element when the lock assembly is in the locking position (figs. 5-6 and ¶ 0052-54, a locking pin 331 [equivalent to the latch element] of a locking unit 33 is inserted into an engagement groove 63 [equivalent to the receptacle clearance] to lock the stick 2 in an upright state by restricting the pivoting movement. When the locking pin 331 is not engaged, the stick 2 is enabled to make the pivoting movement).
Regarding claim 10, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 9, wherein one of the first and the second joint elements has a receptacle clearance of which an opening extends toward the envelope (figs. 5-6, the ball cover 6 [corresponds to the recited second joint element] has the engagement groove 63 [corresponds to the recited receptable clearance] which has opening toward the envelope of the hollow ball 31), wherein on the other one of the first and the second joint elements is provided a latch element which (figs. 5-6, the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element] has the locking pin 331 [corresponds to the recited latch element]), in a direction that runs perpendicularly to the envelope, is displaceable in relation to the other one of the first and the second joint elements such that said latch element does not extend beyond the envelope toward the one of the first and the second joint elements when the locking assembly is in the releasing position, and said latch element extends beyond the envelope toward the one of the first and the second joint elements, and into the receptacle clearance when the locking assembly is in the locking position (fig. 5-6 and ¶ 0052-54, the locking pin 331 moves vertically. The pin extends out of the ball to be rested in an engagement groove 63 in a locking position. The pin is released from the engagement groove 63 and retrieved into a locking pin insertion hole 32 of the ball in a releasing position).
Regarding claim 12, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the at least one engagement element has a free end, wherein the at least one free end defines a cleaning plane in which the at least one engagement element engages with the floor area (fig. 1, the rotary plane 5 [corresponds to the recited engagement element] has a free end toward a bottom of the cleaner, and an area of the rotary plane 5 can be defined as a cleaning plane parallel to a floor area to be cleaned), and wherein the control handle is pivotable relative to the base to a vertical position in which the longitudinal axis of the control handle extends upward away from the cleaning plane (¶ 0043, the stick 2 [corresponds to the recited control handle] is pivotable and tiltable in relation to the body 1 [corresponds to the recited base] of the cleaner; annotated Chung fig. 3 above, the stick 2 extends upward away from the cleaning plane along the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 13, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 12, wherein the longitudinal axis of the control handle is perpendicular to the cleaning plane (see annotated Chung fig. 3 above and fig. 1, the cleaning plane which includes the bottom area of the rotary plane 5 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the stick 2 [corresponds to the recited control handle]).
Regarding claim 14, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 12, wherein the control handle is in the vertical position when a locking assembly is in a locking position (figs. 5-6 and ¶ 0052-54, the locking pin 331 [equivalent to the latch element] of a locking unit 33 is inserted into an engagement groove 63 [equivalent to the receptacle clearance] to lock the stick 2 in an upright state by restricting the pivoting movement).
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.
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 4, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly the grooves extend about the envelope by more than 150°.
As shown in fig. 4 and annotated Chung fig. 3 above, the grooves form curvature configurations, but Chung does not disclose an angle. On the other hand, specification of the instant application states the grooves extend by more than 150° so that the control handle can be pivoted in relation to the base (¶ 0018). In Chung, the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element] disposed at an end of the stick 2 is pivotable in the ball support 111 [corresponds to the recited second joint element] (¶ 0048). The groove angle is a result effective variable for achieving proper pivoting of the first joint element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the grooves to extend about the envelope by more than 150° for the purpose of allowing the first joint element to pivot. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III).
Regarding claim 7, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the two grooves that run in an arcuate manner are provided on the first joint element, and the first engagement part and the second engagement part are provided on the second joint element.
In Chung, the two grooves, which run in an arcuate manner as shown in annotated Chung fig. 3 above, are provided on the ball support 111 [corresponds to the recited second joint element], and the pair of engagement projections 34 [correspond to the recited first and second engagement parts] are provided on the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element].
However, specification (¶ 0008) and preceding claim 1 of the instant application states the grooves are provided either on the first joint element or the second joint element, and the first and second engagement parts are provided on the other second joint element or the first joint element. Specification does not state whether it is necessary to provide the two grooves on the first joint element and the first and second engagement parts on the second joint element.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the two grooves on the ball support 111 and the pair of engagement projections 34 on the hollow ball 31 since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that the grooves and the engagement projections of Chung would perform equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily provide the two grooves on the ball support and the pair of engagement projections on the hollow ball as long as it allows the handle to pivot with respect to the base of the cleaner.
Regarding claim 11, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose the receptacle clearance is provided on the first joint element, and the latch element is provided on the second joint element.
In Chung, the engagement groove 63 [corresponds to the recited receptacle clearance] is provided on the ball cover 6 [corresponds to the recited second joint element], and the locking pin 331 [corresponds to the recited latch element] is provided on the hollow ball 31 [corresponds to the recited first joint element].
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the receptacle clearance on the second joint element and the latch element on the first joint element since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that the locking assembly of Chung would perform equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily dispose the receptacle clearance on the second joint element and the latch element on the first joint element as long as it can switch between the locking position and the releasing position.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ell (US 2,241,771).
Regarding claim 6, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose at least one of the first engagement part and the second engagement part is configured as a ball which is mounted so as to be stationary and rotatable on the other one of the first and the second joint elements, and able to roll in one of the grooves.
Ell teaches, in an analogous floor cleaning machine field of endeavor, at least one of the first engagement part and the second engagement part is configured as a ball which is mounted so as to be stationary and rotatable on the other one of the first and the second joint elements, and able to roll in one of the grooves (fig. 2 and p. 1, left column, line 43-right column, line 23, a handle 12 of a vacuum cleaner moves pivotally with respect to a suction nozzle 10. Two spherical pivot balls 17 [correspond to the recited first and second engagement parts] are seated and rolled in recesses/grooves of a ball 14 [corresponds to the recited joint element]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engagement part of Chung to replace it with the ball as taught by Ell. The balls act as pivots to permit the nozzle to incline at a greater or a lesser angle to a working surface as desired without permitting relatively loose universal movement of a handle during cleaning operation (Ell, p. 1, right column, lines 1-6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Simonely et al. (CN 202288141U, hereinafter Simonely).
Regarding claim 15, Chung discloses the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 12, wherein the floor cleaning machine is configured to be moved across the floor area to be cleaned when operated in a cleaning operation (¶ 0068, the rotary mop cleaner is moved and a mop attached to the rotary plate 5 of the cleaner is brought into contact with the floor surface to wipe the surface), but does not disclose a pre-loading element is provided which, in the position in which the control handle is pivoted from the vertical position counter to a main operating direction, is designed to impinge said control handle with a force toward the vertical position.
Simonely teaches, in an analogous floor cleaning machine field of endeavor, a pre-loading element is provided which, in the position in which the control handle is pivoted from the vertical position counter to a main operating direction, is designed to impinge said control handle with a force toward the vertical position (Simonely English translation, p. 10:37-11:41 and figs. 7-9, a vacuum cleaner comprises a handle and a base. The handle is pivotable through a ball-and-socket joint. The joint further comprises a spring 72 [corresponds to the recited pre-loading element]. The compressed spring 72 during a cleaning operation makes a pivot assist device 7 to return to an initial position, and it enables the handle to move to a vertical position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floor cleaning machine of Chung to provide the pre-loading element as taught by Simonely. The stretched or compressed spring attached to the handle of the cleaner helps a user to maneuver the handle easily.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung as modified Simonely, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Kim (WO 2020218668A1).
Regarding claim 16, Chung as modified by Simonely teaches the floor cleaning machine as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the pre-loading element is configured as a spring element (Simonely English translation, p. 10:37-11:41 and figs. 7-9, the joint of the vacuum cleaner comprises the spring 72), but does not disclose a first end of the spring element is fastened to the control handle.
Kim teaches, in an analogous floor cleaning machine field of endeavor, a first end of the spring element is fastened to the control handle (fig. 14 and Kim English translation, p. 5:26-6:11, a mop cleaning device comprises a base plate 100 and a handle 400. The handle 400 pivots with respect to the base plate 100. An elastic member 300 which can be a spring is connected to a connection part 210 of the handle 400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floor cleaning machine of Chung as modified by Simonely to provide the spring element as taught by Kim. Elastic restoring force of the spring element helps maintaining a position of the base plate 100 where a mop is attached for cleaning operation.
Chung as modified by Simonely and Kim does not disclose a second end of said spring element being connected to a strap element, wherein the strap element on a side of the joint that points in the main operating direction is guided from the control handle to the base, and is fastened to the base.
However, Kim discloses the elastic member/spring 300 has a first end fastened to the handle 400 via the connection part 210, and a second end fastened to the base plate 100 [corresponds to the recited base]. The elastic member 300 is disposed on a side of a pivot joint (a joint between reference characters 100 and 215 in fig. 5) and it can face a direction where the base plate 100 moves [corresponds to the recited operating direction].
Kim does not disclose a strap. The elastic member of Kim is directly fastened to the base. On the other hand, specification of the instant application is silent as to why the spring element has to be connected to the strap element. It appears the spring element directly fastened to the base would perform the same as the spring element indirectly fastened to the base and applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-loading element of Chung as modified by Simonely and Kim to fasten the spring element directly to the base as taught by Kim in order to enhance pivoting force of a handle so that a user can maneuver the cleaner easily.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Chung does not disclose a control handle that can be pivoted in arbitrary directions relative to the base. Applicant asserts the Chung’s ball joint swiveling is limited to two axes and Chung does not disclose that swiveling around both axes simultaneously is possible. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specification and claims of the instant application do state the control handle can pivot in arbitrary directions relative to the base. However, specification presents motions of the control handle that the second joint element is pivotable about a fulcrum which is stationary in terms of the second joint element (¶ 0006), and the balls 57 are mounted so as to be stationary in the second joint element and are able to roll in the grooves 45 (¶ 0054). Additionally, figs. 2, 6, 7, 8 show the control handle pivots only forward-rearward direction about the fulcrum. Despite the term “arbitrary directions”, figures and specification do not present how the control handle pivots in arbitrary directions.
On the other hand, the stick/handle of Chung pivots (forward-rearward directions) and tilts (left-right directions). Although specification of Chung does not state explicitly the pivoting and tiling are done simultaneously, there is no explicit statement that the pivoting and tilting cannot be done simultaneously. In examination of figures, it appears there is not element preventing the handle from simultaneous pivoting and tilting.
In mechanics, possible motions of a mechanical device are translation and rotation. Here, the first joint element is fixed so that there is no translational motion in any of x, y, and z axes. On the other hand, the recited pivoting in arbitrary directions should be combination of pitch (forward-rearward motion) and yaw (left-right motion) because there is no rolling (rotation about a vertical handle axis). Then, the ball joint of Chung is also capable of pivoting in arbitrary directions by rotating in the forward-rearward directions and left-right directions.
Applicant argues Chung does not disclose the at least two grooves that run in an arcuate manner. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts Chung discloses the straight guide grooves 111c, but Examiner has indicated the accommodation portion 111a including the guide grooves 111c corresponds to the recited grooves (see annotated Chung fig. 3 above). The accommodation portion 111a is formed in an arcuate manner. In addition, figures do not show whether the guide grooves 111c have a straight configuration at interior of the grooves.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights