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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsugi (2020/0230670) in view of Smith (US 3,579,697).
Regarding Claim 1, Mitsugi teaches a glass cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a brush head (Ref. 9, Fig. 1, [0031]) rotatable about an axis of rotation (Annotated Fig. 3 below) and comprising a drive portion (Ref. 14, Fig. 1-2, [0039]) coupled to a drive shaft (Ref. 8, Fig. 1&3, [0042] describes that a drive portion (14) may be individually mounted to each spindle), and a brush portion (Ref. 9A, Fig .3) rotatably coupled to the drive portion (Fig. 2, [0039]).
Mitsugi fails to explicitly teach the drive portion is slidably coupled to a drive shaft, and wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion being slidable relative to the drive shaft in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation while coupled to the drive shaft. Smith teaches a cleaning brush with a drive portion, drive shaft, and brush portion and can be considered analogous art because it within the same field of endeavor. Smith teaches a driving portion (Ref. 28&28a, Fig. 2-3) slidably coupled to a drive shaft (Ref. 58, 58a, and 56, Fig. 2-3, examiner notes the drive portion is slidably coupled to the drive shaft using the coupling sleeve) wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58, 58a, &56) in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 3) while coupled to the drive shaft (examiner notes the term connected is interpreted as touching , Figs. 2&3 shows the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58a) in a parallel direction while moving together and touching when coupled together). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coupling of the drive portion to the drive shaft, as taught by Mitsugi, to be slidably coupled, as taught by Smith, to allow for easy removal of the brush head for cleaning and to easily replace the brush head and drive shaft if there is any damage ([Col. 4, Line 70-74]).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Mitsugi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the drive portion defines a bore (Ref. 11, Fig. 1) extending along the axis of rotation (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Mitsugi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the glass cleaning apparatus comprises a plurality of brush heads (Fig. 1&2) arranged in a first row (Ref. L1, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Mitsugi teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches wherein the glass cleaning apparatus comprises a second row of brush heads (Ref. L2, Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacher (DE 202018107027 U1) in view of Smith (US 3,579,697).
Regarding Claim 1, Zacher teaches A glass cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a brush head (Ref. 8, Fig. 1) rotatable about an axis of rotation (Fig. 1 annotated below) and comprising a drive portion (Ref. 5,14&15, Fig. 1-2) coupled to a drive shaft (Ref. 7&13, Fig. 1), and a brush portion (Ref. 11, Fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the drive portion (Fig. 1).
Zacher fails to explicitly teach the drive portion is slidably coupled to a drive shaft and a brush portion and wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion being slidable relative to the drive shaft in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation while coupled to the drive shaft. Smith teaches a cleaning brush with a drive portion, drive shaft, and brush portion and can be considered analogous art because it within the same field of endeavor. Smith teaches a driving portion (Ref. 28&28a, Fig. 2-3) slidably coupled to a drive shaft (Ref. 58, 58a, and 56, Fig. 2-3, examiner notes the drive portion is slidably coupled to the drive shaft using the coupling sleeve) wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58, 58a, &56) in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 3) while coupled to the drive shaft (examiner notes the term connected is interpreted as touching , Figs. 2&3 shows the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58a) in a parallel direction while moving together and touching when coupled together). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coupling of the drive portion(4) to the drive shaft (7), as taught by Zacher, to be slidably coupled, as taught by Smith, to allow for easy removal of the brush head for cleaning and to easily replace the brush head and drive shaft if there is any damage ([Col. 4, Line 70-74]).
PNG
media_image2.png
558
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Zacher teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the drive portion comprises a socket disposed therein ([0012] describes having ball socket used to connect the driving portion to the brush portion, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Zacher teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches wherein the brush portion comprises a ball rotatably engaged in the socket ([0014] describes having ball joint on the brush head).
Regarding Claim 10, Zacher teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the brush portion (11) comprises a brush (Ref. 11, Fig. 1) including a plurality of bristles (Fig. 1, [0022] descries bristles of the brush) extending therefrom (Fig. 1).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 5,964,003) in view of Smith (US 3,579,697).
Regarding Claim 1, Rogers teaches a glass cleaning apparatus (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising: a brush head (Ref. 68&72, Fig. 1, [Col. 1, Lines 4-6] describe a brush) rotatable about an axis of rotation (Fig. 1 annotated below) and comprising a drive portion (Ref. 16,52,18 lower portion,&80, Fig. 1&4) slidably coupled to a drive shaft (Ref. 18 upper portion, Fig. 1), and a brush portion (Ref. 68, Fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the drive portion (Fig. 4, [Col. 2, Lines 15-17] describes the shaft rotating the head (68).
Rogers fails to explicitly teach the drive portion is slidably coupled to a drive shaft and a brush portion and wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion being slidable relative to the drive shaft in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation while coupled to the drive shaft. Smith teaches a cleaning brush with a drive portion, drive shaft, and brush portion and can be considered analogous art because it within the same field of endeavor. Smith teaches a driving portion (Ref. 28&28a, Fig. 2-3) slidably coupled to a drive shaft (Ref. 58, 58a, and 56, Fig. 2-3, examiner notes the drive portion is slidably coupled to the drive shaft using the coupling sleeve) wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58, 58a, &56) in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 3) while coupled to the drive shaft (examiner notes the term connected is interpreted as touching , Figs. 2&3 shows the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58a) in a parallel direction while moving together and touching when coupled together). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coupling of the drive portion to the drive shaft, as taught by Rogers, to be slidably coupled, as taught by Smith, to allow for easy removal of the brush head for cleaning and to easily replace the brush head and drive shaft if there is any damage ([Col. 4, Line 70-74]).
PNG
media_image3.png
754
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Rogers as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Rogers further teaches wherein the drive portion defines a bore (Ref. 66, Fig. 1) extending along the axis of rotation (Fig. 1&4 shows the bore has a dimension in the direction of the axis of rotation and is extending along the axis of rotation).
Regarding Claim 3, Rogers as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches Rogers wherein the drive portion further comprises a shaft extension (Ref. 18 lower portion, Fig. 1&4) coupled to the drive shaft (18 upper portion through the universal joint (20)) and movably captured in the bore (Fig. 1 shows the shaft extensions within the bore, [Col. 2, lines 60-61] describes the shaft extension captured in the bore).
Regarding Claim 4, Rogers as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Rogers further teaches wherein the drive portion further comprises a key (Ref. 80, Fig. 1) extending into the bore (Fig. 1) and slidably engaged with a keyway in the shaft extension ([Col. 2, Line 60-67] describes the key slidably engaging the shaft extension through lateral keyways (openings)), the keyway extending longitudinally along at least a portion of a length of the shaft extension in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1 shows that there is some dimension of the keyway along the length of the shaft extending longitudinally in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation).
Regarding Claim 5, Rogers as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Rogers further teaches wherein the drive portion comprises a socket disposed therein (Ref. 64, Fig. 4 shows a socket).
Regarding Claim 7, Rogers as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Rogers further teaches wherein brush portion comprises a torque transfer member (Ref. 74, Fig. 1) extending therefrom (Fig. 4), the torque transfer member spaced radially from the axis of rotation (Fig 1&4) and engaged with a recess in the drive portion ([Col. 2, lines 60-67] describes there are lateral openings in the drive portion 74 that help engage the drive portion to the brush head with the help of a set screw).
Regarding Claim 11, Rogers as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Rogers further teaches wherein the keyway comprises a first end and a second end (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 60-67] the keyways (openings) top and bottom) separated from the first end by a length of the keyway extending longitudinally along at least the portion of the length of the shaft extension in the direction parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1 shows that there is some dimension along the length of the shaft extending longitudinally in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation), wherein the key is slidably engaged with the keyway such that at least a portion of the key can move between the first end and the second end of the keyway with the shaft extension coupled to the drive shaft ([Col. 2, Line 60-67] describes the key slidably engaging the shaft extension through lateral keyways (openings) between the first and second ends of the keyway, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion being slidable relative to the drive shaft in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation while coupled to the drive shaft.” thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the drive portion being slideably coupled comprises the drive portion being slidable relative to the drive shaft in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation while coupled to the drive shaft has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Smith to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Smith teaches wherein the drive portion being slidably coupled comprises the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58, 58a, &56) in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 3) while coupled to the drive shaft (examiner notes the term coupled is interpreted as touching , Figs. 2&3 shows the drive portion (28&28a) being slidable relative to the drive shaft (58a) in a parallel direction while moving together and touching when coupled together). If applicant intended for the limitation to mean locked together such a limitation is not required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the lateral opening extending longitudinally along at least a portion of a length of the shaft extension has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Rodgers to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Rogers further teaches the keyway extending longitudinally along at least a portion of a length of the shaft extension in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1 shows that there is some dimension of the keyway along the length of the shaft extending longitudinally in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation). If applicant intended for the keyway’s longest dimension to extend longitudinally such a limitation is not required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Keddie (4,513,466), Montalvo (4,151,624), Thiess (2005/0144744), and Stella (5,235,716) teaches a cleaning apparatus with brush heads and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723