DETAILED ACTION
Wet Cleaning Apparatus
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03-06-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined. The previous 102 rejection has been modified to a 103 rejection due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see, filed 03-06-2026, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully
considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (as necessitated by
amendment) relies on a different combination of prior art references, not applied in the
prior rejection of record to teach the amendments.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20190082907A1) in view of Stackelberg (US20040089157A1).
Regarding claim 1, Conrad teaches
a dirt inlet (104, figure 1);
a motor (124, figure 5) and fan (para 0519) for delivering suction to the dirt inlet;
a separator unit (para 0525,0540,0548) for separating water from a flow of air generated by the suction;
a container (148 and 194, figure 17a) for collecting the separated water, wherein the container having a top (192, figure 17a) and a bottom (178, figure 17a);
an air passage (158, figure 17a) for passing the air separated from the water towards the motor and fan, the air passage being spatially separated from the bottom of the container; and
an internal wall (186, figure 17b) extending from the top towards the bottom of the container, a space (para 0545, figure 17a-17b) being defined between the container and the internal wall, wherein water collected at the bottom of container being receivable in the space when the container is orientated such that the collected water moves from the bottom towards the top of the container, wherein the internal wall is arranged to prevent water received in the space from passing into the air passage (para 0544-0580).
Conrad fails to teach a thickness of the internal wall increases towards the top of the container.
Similar to Conrad, Stackelberg teaches a container (18, figure 2) for a wet cleaning vacuum system (abstract, figures 1-5), where the container has an internal wall (20, figure 2) to shield the outlet port (abstract, para 0033-0043), where the internal wall construction can be changed (para 0035, 0042).
Since, Conrad and Stackelberg both teach a wet cleaning apparatus designed to have an internal wall within a container. Though each of Conrad and Stackelberg teach similar apparatus both teach containers having internal walls having different sizes based on a desired effect. Knowing this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify the geometry of the internal wall of Conrad to have any desired dimension, including having a thickness of the internal wall increases towards the top of the container, in an attempt to optimize the internal wall geometry in an attempt to try and ensure it is sufficient size to direct the air stream away from the outlet port to decrease liquid entrainment and carryover in a stream of air. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Conrad teaches
a cleaner head (see Conrad 104, figure 1) for cleaning a surface to be cleaned, the dirt inlet (see Conrad 104, figure 1) being included in the cleaner head; and
a pivot point (see Conrad 109,para 0511 0521) between the cleaner head and the container (see Conrad 148 and 194, figure 2, 17a), wherein the pivot
point (see Conrad 109,para 0511 0521) is arranged to permit angular adjustment of the container towards the surface to be cleaned such that water collected in the bottom (see Conrad para 0535,0544-0552) of the container moves into the space, and subsequent angular adjustment of the container away from the surface to be cleaned causes the water to move towards the bottom of the container.
Regarding claim 3, modified Conrad teaches wherein the container (see Conrad 148 and 194, figure 17a) comprises a side portion (see Conrad figure 17a-17b) between the top (see Conrad 192, figure 17a-b) and the bottom (see Conrad 178, figure 17a) of the container;
a handle (see Conrad 386, figure 3) for grasping by a user of the wet cleaning apparatus, wherein the handle, the cleaner head (see Conrad 104, figure 3), and the container are arranged such that a user pushing the handle causes at least the cleaner head and the container to move forward, and the user pulling the handle causes said at least the cleaner head
and the container to move backwards towards the user, the water collected in the container sloshing against the side portion of the container during said pushing (see Conrad para 0512, 0563, 0546,0587) and wherein the pivot point (see Conrad 109,para 0511 0521) is arranged to permit tilting of the container towards the user grasping the handle while the dirt inlet (see Conrad 104, figure 1) continues to provide suction to the surface to be cleaned.
Conrad fails to teach a water directing member sealingly adjoining the side portion, the water directing member protruding backwards from said side portion, thereby to inhibit said water sloshing against the side portion from continuing to move along the side portion towards the air passage; optionally wherein the water directing member is detachable from the side portion.
However Conrad does disclose in a different embodiment a water directing member (300, figure 33) sealingly adjoining a side portion (para 0624-0629), the water directing member protruding backwards from said side portion, thereby to inhibit said water sloshing against the
side portion from continuing to move along the side portion towards the air passage (para 0629); optionally wherein the water directing member is detachable from the side portion (para 0624-0628).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Conrad to include water directing member as taught by Conrad. This modification would help prevent splashing and sloshing of liquid within the liquid collection container (see Conrad para 0629).
Regarding claim 4, modified Conrad teaches a longest lateral extension of the water directing member (Conrad 300, figure 33) from the side portion (Conrad figure 33) measured normal to the side portion (Conrad see 302, figure 33).
However, Conrad fails to explicitly disclose longest lateral extension of the water directing member from the side portion measured normal to the side portion is at least is at least 5 mm; preferably wherein said longest lateral extension is in range 10 to 50 mm or up to 75% of an interior width of the container.
Since Conrad discloses a longest lateral extension of the water directing member from the side portion measured normal to the side portion, there would be reasonable expectations of success. it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the longest lateral extension is at least 5 mm; preferably wherein said longest lateral extension is in range of 10 to 50 mm or up to 75% of an interior width of the container, does not appear to be critical to the claimed invention and/or provide any unexpected results.
Furthermore, the longest lateral extension is at least 5 mm; preferably wherein said longest lateral extension is 10 to 50 mm or up to 75% of an interior width of the container is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. variable which
achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is to help prevent the backflow of liquid.
Moreover, it appears that the water directing member would have performed equally well with the claimed range and percentage since the general conditions of the claim are met (e.g. Conrad discloses a lateral extension of water directing member) then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range/value by routine experimentation. Thus, as set forth above, it would have not been inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified have wherein longest lateral extension of the water directing member from the side portion measured normal to the side portion is at least is at least 5 mm; preferably wherein said longest lateral extension is 10 to 50 mm or up to 75% of an interior width of the container.
Regarding claim 5, modified Conrad teaches the water directing member (Conrad 300, figure 33) comprises a peripheral shut-off area or a sealing portion for adjoining the water directing member to the side portion (Conrad para 0624-0629 discloses a specific width and area for element 300 and element is impervious); optionally wherein a thickness of the water directing member increases towards a region of the side portion to which the peripheral shut-off area or sealing portion is sealingly adjoined.
Regarding claim 6, modified Conrad teaches wherein the water directing member (Conrad 300, figure 33) comprises a surface which faces away from the air passage (Conrad figure 33-34), and wherein the water directing member comprises a curved surface which curves from the surface towards the peripheral shut- off area or sealing portion (Conrad para 0628).
Regarding claim 7, modified Conrad teaches wherein the sealing portion (Conrad 33, figure 33;para 0624-0629 discloses a specific width and area for element 300 and element is impervious) is formed from an elastomeric material (Conrad para 0629); optionally wherein the elastomeric material comprises silicone rubber.
Regarding claim 8, modified Conrad teaches wherein the water directing member (Conrad 300, figure 33) comprises a first surface and/or a second surface for contacting said water sloshing against the side portion (Conrad para 0629).
Regarding claim 9, modified Conrad teaches wherein the first surface (Conrad figure 33, annotated figure 34 and 36) extends normal to the side portion (Conrad see 302) or inclines towards the top of the container; the second surface (Conrad see annotated figure below) declines towards the bottom of the container such as to guide water thereon away from the air passage (Conrad para 0625-0628) or (Conrad examiner interpreting only one of these limitations needs to be met), when the first surface inclines towards the top of the container, the second surface extends normal to the side portion; optionally wherein the first surface extends from the side portion and the second surface extends from the first surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
863
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
816
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Conrad teaches the water directing member (Conrad 300, figure 33) comprises the first surface (Conrad see annotated figure above) and the second surface (Conrad see annotated figure above), wherein the second surface curves from the first surface towards the bottom (Conrad para 0628) of the container and/or towards the side portion (Conrad see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Conrad teaches wherein the separator unit (Conrad para 0525,0540,0548, ), the water directing member (Conrad 300, figure 33; para 0624-0628), and optionally the internal wall are included in a unit (Conrad figure 17a-17b and figure 33-35), said unit being detachable from the container (Conrad discloses separator and baffle capable of being moved).
Regarding claim 12, Conrad as modified in claim 3 teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach wherein an inner surface of the side portion is arcuate such that the inner surface curves outwardly in the forward direction.
However, Conrad does disclose various different constructions of the container (Conrad figures 1-79).
Because Conrad discloses it is known to make adjustments to construction of the container, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person ordinary skill in the art to make an inner surface of the side portion is arcuate such that the inner surface curves outwardly in the forward direction, because discovering an optimum shape, would have been a mere design consideration based on the characteristics the container needed to reduce water backflow.
Regarding claim 13, modified Conrad teaches the internal wall (Conrad 186, figure 17b) sealingly (Conrad para 0544 0558 and 0657) adjoins to the container (Conrad 148 and 194, figure 17a); optionally wherein the internal wall and the container are integrally formed.
Regarding claim 14, modified Conrad teaches the separator unit (Conrad para 0525,0540,0548) comprises at least one selected from a labyrinth-type separator unit, a filter-type separator unit, and a cyclone-type separator unit.
Regarding claim 15, modified Conrad teaches a tube (Conrad 180, figure 17b) for delivering said airflow to the separator unit (Conrad para 0525,0544 0540,0548), wherein the separator unit comprises a cup (Conrad 142, figure 17a) which receives an end of the tube; optionally wherein the tube extends in a central region of the container towards the cup.
Regarding claim 16, modified Conrad teaches wherein the tilting of the container is up to 90 degrees (Conrad para 0591 discloses tilting of up to 90 degrees).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/027,063 (reference application) in view of Stackelberg (US20040089157A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because are broader in at least one aspect and recite additional features not claimed in the co-pending application claim.
Co-Pending Application 18/027063
Instant Application 18/027068
1. (Currently Amended) A wet cleaning apparatus comprising:
a cleaner head for cleaning a surface to be cleaned, the cleaner head having a dirt inlet;
a motor and a fan for delivering suction to the dirt inlet;
a separator unit for separating water from a flow of air generated by the suction;
a container for collecting the separated water, the container having a top and a bottom, and a side portion between the top and the bottom;
an air passage provided in the container for passing the air separated from the water towards the motor and the fan, the air passage being spatially separated from the bottom of the container;
a handle for grasping by a user of the apparatus, wherein the handle, the cleaner head, and the container are arranged such that the user pushing the handle causes at least the cleaner head and the container to move forward, and the user pulling the handle causes said at least the cleaner head and the container to move backwards towards the user, the water collected in the container sloshing against the side portion of the container during said pushing;
a pivot point between the cleaner head and the container, wherein the pivot point is arranged to permit tilting of the container towards the user grasping the handle, while the dirt inlet continues to provide the suction to the surface to be cleaned; and
a water directing member sealingly adjoining the side portion, the water directing member protruding backwards from said side portion, wherein the water directing member comprises a surface which faces away from the air passage, and wherein the surface contacts the water sloshing against the side portion to inhibit[[ said]] the water sloshing against the side portion from continuing to move along the side portion towards the air passage.
11. (Previously Presented) The wet cleaning apparatus of claim 1, comprising an internal wall extending from the top towards the bottom of the container, a space being defined between the container and the internal wall, the water collected at the bottom of the container being receivable in the space when the container is orientated such that the collected water moves from the bottom towards the top of the container, wherein the internal wall is arranged to prevent water received in the space from passing into the air passage, wherein the internal wall sealingly adjoins to the container and/or wherein the internal wall and the container are integrally formed.
1. (Currently Amended) A wet cleaning apparatus comprising:a dirt inlet;a motor and a fan for delivering suction to the dirt inlet;a separator unit for separating water from a flow of air generated by the suction;a container for collecting the separated water, wherein the container has a top and a bottom;an air passage for passing the air separated from the water towards the motor and fan, the air passage being spatially separated from the bottom of the container; andan internal wall extending from the top towards the bottom of the container, a space being defined between the container and the internal wall, wherein the water collected at the bottom of container being receivable in the space when the container is orientated such that the collected water moves from the bottom towards the top of the container, and wherein a thickness of the internal wall increases towards the top of the container such that the internal wall is arranged to prevent the water received in the space from passing into the air passage.
2. (Previously Presented) The wet cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, comprising:a cleaner head for cleaning a surface to be cleaned, the dirt inlet being included in the cleaner head; anda pivot point between the cleaner head and the container, wherein the pivot point is arranged to permit angular adjustment of the container towards the surface to be cleaned such that the water collected in the bottom of the container moves into the space, and subsequent angular adjustment of the container away from the surface to be cleaned causes the water to move towards the bottom of the container.
3. (Previously Presented) The wet cleaning apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the container comprises a side portion between the top and the bottom of the container;a handle for grasping by a user of the wet cleaning apparatus, wherein the handle, the cleaner head, and the container are arranged such that a user pushing the handle causes at least the cleaner head and the container to move forward, and the user pulling the handle causes said at least the cleaner head and the container to move backwards towards the user, the water collected in the container sloshing against the side portion of the container during said pushing, and wherein the pivot point is arranged to permit tilting of the container towards the user grasping the handle while the dirt inlet continues to provide the suction to the surface to be cleaned; anda water directing member sealingly adjoining the side portion, the water directing member protruding backwards from said side portion, thereby to inhibit said water sloshing against the side portion from continuing to move along the side portion towards the air passage, optionally wherein the water directing member is detachable from the side portion.
Thus, it is apparent, that the co-pending application claims 1 and 11 includes features that are not in application claims 1-3. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited above, where applicant has been once granted a patent containing a claim for the specific of narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claims 1-3 is anticipated by co-pending application claims 1 and 11, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claims 1-3 is obvious over co-pending application claims 1 and 11.
With respect to the additional features recited in application claims 1-3 co-pending application claims 1 and 11 fails to recite a thickness of the internal wall increases towards the top of the container such that the internal wall.
Similar to co-pending application, Stackelberg teaches a container (18, figure 2) for a wet cleaning vacuum system (abstract, figures 1-5), where the container has an internal wall (20, figure 2) to shield the outlet port (abstract, para 0033-0043), where the internal wall construction can be changed (para 0035, 0042).
Since, co-pending application, and Stackelberg both teach a wet cleaning apparatus designed to have an internal wall within a container. Though each of co-pending application, and Stackelberg teach similar apparatus both teach containers having internal walls having different sizes based on a desired effect. Knowing this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify the geometry of the internal wall of co-pending application, to have any desired dimension, including having a thickness of the internal wall increases towards the top of the container, in an attempt to optimize the internal wall geometry in an attempt to try and ensure it is sufficient size to direct the air stream away from the outlet port to decrease liquid entrainment and carryover in a stream of air. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights