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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. New claims 14-19 have been added. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action of 25 March 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancl (US 9,707,580, hereafter Mancl ‘580) in view of Mancl (US 8,387,898, hereafter Mancl ‘898).
Regarding claim 1, Mancl ‘580 discloses a cleaning machine (fig. 4) comprising
a nebuliser device (78) for nebulising a liquid product (80, see col. 4, ln. 20-22),
a tank (82) which contains said liquid product (fig. 4),
an intake part (fig. 4 – elements within 25’) which comprises at least one vent (56’) for waste air (col. 4, ln. 10-12),
wherein said nebuliser device comprises a dispenser for dispensing said liquid product (col. 4, ln. 20-22),
a first connecting duct which connects in fluid communication said tank with said dispenser (fig. 4 – the conduit in 82),
a second duct which connects in air-flow communication said at least one waste air vent of said intake part with said dispenser (fig. 4 – the conduit connecting 56’ to 78),
wherein said dispenser comprises a hollow body comprising an inner cavity connected in air-flow communication with said second duct (fig. 4 – the second duct transports air into the body of 78),
a dispensing tube (76) connected in fluid communication with said first duct (fig. 4),
wherein a space forming a nebulisation area (84) is provided arranged at a mouth of an outlet pass-through opening of said dispensing tube and at a mouth of an outlet pass-through opening of said inner cavity (fig. 4),
wherein said intake part comprises at least one motor (10) adapted to intake air from an inlet (54’, see col. 4, ln. 9-12), said at least one motor being housed inside a container (25’) of said intake part (fig. 4), wherein said container comprises at least one inlet pass-through opening (54’) for passing air to said at least one motor and at least one outlet pass-through opening (56’, see fig. 4), wherein said at least one outlet pass-through opening is said at least one waste air vent (fig. 4).
Mancl ‘580 does not disclose,
first, a dirt container in this embodiment of the cleaning machine, or
second, wherein said container comprises a pass-through vent hole of smaller size with respect to said outlet pass-through opening, wherein said pass-through vent hole opens the container to the outside; and wherein said pass-through vent hole is configured to allow airflow to vent from said container.
Regarding the first, Mancl ‘580 also teaches a different embodiment of a cleaning machine (fig. 5) comprising a dirt container (92) and wherein said intake part comprises at least one motor (10) adapted to intake air from said dirt container (col. 4, ln. 33-35), said at least one motor being housed inside a container (25’) of said intake part (fig. 4), wherein said container comprises at least one inlet pass-through opening (54’) for passing air from said dirt container to said at least one motor and at least one outlet pass-through opening (56’, see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have combined these two embodiments of cleaning machines of Mancl ‘580 in order to provide the dirt container arranged at the intake part of the motor since this would provide a cleaning machine capable of both spraying a cleaning fluid and vacuuming dirt and debris using a single motor.
Regarding the second, Mancl ‘898 teaches a fluid spraying machine (10, see fig. 1) comprising a motor (36/38) housed inside a container (12/18/14/40/44), an outlet pass-through opening (42) and a pass-through vent hole (76) of smaller size with respect to said outlet pass-through opening (col. 3, ln. 43-45), wherein said pass-through vent hole opens the container to the outside (col. 3, ln. 27-31; figs. 1, 2); and wherein said pass-through vent hole is configured to allow airflow to vent from said container (col. 3, ln. 27-31; figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified the container of the cleaning machine of Mancl ‘580 to comprise a pass-through vent hole of smaller size with respect to said outlet pass-through opening, wherein said pass-through vent hole opens the container to the outside; and wherein said pass-through vent hole is configured to allow airflow to vent from said container, as taught by Mancl ‘898. This was known to limit pneumatic pressure buildup within the container (col. 3, ln. 31-35).
Regarding claim 2, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, and wherein said nebulisation area is arranged inside the inner cavity (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, and wherein at least one portion of said dispensing tube projects inside at least one portion of said inner cavity (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, and wherein said outlet pass-through opening may be arranged in any point of the container (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, and wherein said pass-through vent hole remains open during operation to vent from said container (col. 3, ln. 27-31; figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, and wherein the nebuliser device is configured to nebulise the liquid to fine particles of 100 microns or less and to 50 microns or less, respectively.
Regarding these limitations, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 19, Mancl ‘580 discloses a cleaning machine (fig. 4) comprising in combination:
a nebuliser device (78) for nebulising a liquid product (80, see col. 4, ln. 20-22),
a tank (82) which contains said liquid product (fig. 4),
an intake part (fig. 4 – elements within 25’) which comprises at least one motor (10) adapted to intake air from an inlet (54’, see col. 4, ln. 9-12), said at least one motor being housed inside a container (25’) of said intake part (fig. 4), wherein said container comprises at least one inlet pass-through opening (54’) for passing air to said at least one motor and at least one outlet pass-through opening (56’, see fig. 4) forming a vent (56’) for waste air from said intake part (col. 4, ln. 10-12),
wherein said nebuliser device comprises:
a dispenser for dispensing said liquid product (col. 4, ln. 20-22),
a first connecting duct which connects in fluid communication said tank with said dispenser (fig. 4 – the conduit in 82),
a second duct which connects in air-flow communication said waste air vent of said intake part with said dispenser (fig. 4 – the conduit connecting 56’ to 78),
wherein said dispenser comprises a hollow body comprising:
an inner cavity connected in air-flow communication with said second duct (fig. 4 – the second duct transports air into the body of 78),
a dispensing tube (76) connected in fluid communication with said first duct (fig. 4),
wherein a space forming a nebulisation area (84) is provided in the hollow body, arranged at a mouth of an outlet pass-through opening of said dispensing tube and at a mouth of an outlet pass-through opening of said inner cavity (fig. 4).
Mancl ‘580 does not disclose,
first, a dirt container in this embodiment of the cleaning machine, or
second, wherein said container comprises a pass-through vent hole of smaller size with respect to said outlet pass-through opening, wherein said pass-through vent hole opens the container to the outside; and wherein said pass-through vent hole is configured to allow airflow to vent from said container during nebulisation.
Regarding the first, Mancl ‘580 also teaches a different embodiment of a cleaning machine (fig. 5) comprising a dirt container (92) and wherein said intake part comprises at least one motor (10) adapted to intake air from said dirt container (col. 4, ln. 33-35), said at least one motor being housed inside a container (25’) of said intake part (fig. 4), wherein said container comprises at least one inlet pass-through opening (54’) for passing air from said dirt container to said at least one motor and at least one outlet pass-through opening (56’, see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have combined these two embodiments of cleaning machines of Mancl ‘580 in order to provide the dirt container arranged at the intake part of the motor since this would provide a cleaning machine capable of both spraying a cleaning fluid and vacuuming dirt and debris using a single motor.
Regarding the second, Mancl ‘898 teaches a fluid spraying machine (10, see fig. 1) comprising a motor (36/38) housed inside a container (12/18/14/40/44), an outlet pass-through opening (42) and a pass-through vent hole (76) of smaller size with respect to said outlet pass-through opening (col. 3, ln. 43-45), wherein said pass-through vent hole opens the container to the outside (col. 3, ln. 27-31; figs. 1, 2); and wherein said pass-through vent hole is configured to allow airflow to vent from said container during nebulisation (col. 3, ln. 27-31; figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified the container of the cleaning machine of Mancl ‘580 to comprise a pass-through vent hole of smaller size with respect to said outlet pass-through opening, wherein said pass-through vent hole opens the container to the outside; and wherein said pass-through vent hole is configured to allow airflow to vent from said container, as taught by Mancl ‘898. This was known to limit pneumatic pressure buildup within the container (col. 3, ln. 31-35).
Claims 4-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and further in view of Sykes (US 2,888,207).
Regarding claim 4, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, and wherein said inner cavity comprises at least one hollow portion consisting of inner walls of said hollow body (fig. 4), wherein said dispensing tube comprises at least one hollow portion (fig. 4 – inherent, a tube must be hollow to transport fluid), wherein said at least one hollow portion of said dispensing tube is arranged inside said at least one hollow portion of said inner cavity (fig. 4). Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 does not explicitly disclose that these hollow portions are cylindrical.
Sykes teaches a dispenser (col. 2, ln. 60-66) comprising a hollow body (11) with an inner cavity comprising at least one hollow cylindrical portion consisting of inner walls of said hollow body (figs. 1, 4, 5), a dispensing tube (40) comprising at least one hollow cylindrical portion (fig. 4; col. 3, ln. 74-75), wherein said at least one hollow cylindrical portion of said dispensing tube is arranged inside said at least one hollow cylindrical portion of said inner cavity (fig. 4)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dispenser of Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 to make the hollow portion of the inner cavity and the hollow portion of the dispensing tube both cylindrical, as taught by Sykes. It was well-known in the art for form features such as these as cylinders since this facilitates manufacture and eliminates sharp edges, which improves flow of fluid therethrough.
Regarding claim 5, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 4, and Sykes further teaches that said inner cavity comprises at least one hollow portion in truncated-cone shape (53), wherein said at least one hollow portion in truncated-cone shape of said inner cavity comprises an open greater geometrical base forming a first pass-through opening with a greater width which matches with a width of said at least one hollow cylindrical portion of said inner cavity (fig. 4) and an open smaller geometrical base forming a second pass-through opening with a smaller width which is said outlet pass-through opening of said hollow body of said dispenser (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 5, and Sykes further teaches that said dispensing tube comprises a hollow portion in truncated-cone shape (41, see fig. 4), wherein said at least one hollow portion in truncated-cone shape of said dispensing tube comprises an open greater geometrical base forming a first pass-through opening with a greater width which matches with a width of said at least one hollow cylindrical portion of said dispensing tube (fig. 4) and an open smaller geometrical base forming a second pass-through opening with a smaller width which is said outlet pass-through opening of said dispensing tube (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 4, and Sykes further teaches that said at least one hollow cylindrical portion of said inner cavity comprises a circular transversal section, in that said hollow cylindrical portion of said dispensing tube comprises a circular transversal section, in that respective geometrical axes of symmetry of each of the cylindrical hollow portions are congruent (figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 8, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, but not wherein said nebuliser device comprises an air outlet duct comprising an end connected in air-flow communication with said inner cavity and another end which is connected in air-flow communication with said tank.
Sykes teaches the nebuliser device described regarding claim 4 and further comprising an air outlet duct (49/63/75/74) comprising an end (49) connected in air-flow communication with said inner cavity (fig. 4) and another end (74) which is connected in air-flow communication with said tank (fig. 1; col. 5, ln. 6-7).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dispenser of Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 to comprise an air outlet duct comprising an end connected in air-flow communication with said inner cavity and another end which is connected in air-flow communication with said tank, as taught by Sykes. This arrangement was known to provide a means to pressurize the fluid within the tank (col. 5, ln. 35-38).
Regarding claim 9, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 8, and Sykes further teaches wherein said machine comprises the air outlet duct comprising an end connected in air-flow communication with said second duct (fig. 4 – the end 49 is connected with the second duct via the air passages within the gun, which are connected to the supply of air provide by the second duct) and another end which is in air-flow communication with said tank (as described regarding claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 8, and further comprising a hydraulic pump (interpreted to be the source of compressed air, see col. 3, ln. 51-52), wherein said hydraulic pump is connected with said tank (via the flow path described regarding claim 8) and with said first duct (fig. 1, 4), wherein said hydraulic pump keeps under pressure said liquid product at said pressure higher than said atmospheric pressure (col. 5, ln. 35-38).
Regarding claim 11, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 8, and Sykes further teaches that it is provided with two hollow portions (80/56) in truncated-cone shape of said at least one hollow portion in truncated-cone shape (fig. 9), wherein a first a hollow portion in truncated-cone shape (80) gradually reduces a width of the inner cavity to a first width (fig. 9), wherein a second hollow portion (56) in truncated-cone shape gradually reduces said first width of the inner cavity to a second width with a width smaller than the first width (fig. 9), so that the nebulisation area comprises a first zone and a second zone (fig. 9), wherein said first zone is of a width larger than the second zone (fig. 9), wherein said first zone of the nebulisation area provides that the liquid of the liquid product is introduced from the dispensing tube into the inner cavity creating a mixture with the air contained therein and said second zone of the nebulisation area adapted to increase a velocity of the nebulised mixture before being input into the atmosphere through the outlet pass-through opening of said inner cavity.
Regarding this final, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 12, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 8, and Sykes further teaches that said dispenser comprises at least one actuator (14/17) assembled between said first duct (73) and said dispensing tube (36, see fig. 1), wherein said actuator adjusts a fluid flow rate of said liquid product (fig. 1; col. 3, ln. 62-70).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Mancl ‘580 in view of Mancl ‘898 and Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 10, and wherein the hydraulic pump pressurizes the liquid to a pressure between 25 and 30 bar or between 10 and 20 bar.
Regarding these limitations, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights