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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 30 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancl (US 9,707,580).
Regarding claim 1, Mancl 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),
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 (fig. 4 – the openings in 25’ for the wires from element 18).
Mancl does not disclose a dirt container in this embodiment of the cleaning machine.
Mancl 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 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 claim 2, Mancl discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, further characterised in that said nebulisation area is arranged inside the inner cavity (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Mancl discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, further characterised in that at least one portion of said dispensing tube projects inside at least one portion of said inner cavity (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Mancl discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, further wherein said outlet pass-through opening may be arranged in any point of the container (fig. 4).
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancl in view of Sykes (US 2,888,207).
Regarding claim 4, Mancl discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 1, further characterised in that 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 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 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 in view of 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 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 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 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 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 in view of Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 8, and further 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 in view of Sykes discloses the cleaning machine described regarding claim 8, characterised in that it comprises 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 in view of 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 in view of 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention of claim 1 is not obvious over Mancl because “Mancl is primarily directed to the electric arrangement for powering universal motors intended for actuating rechargeable tools and appliances.” Applicant further states that Mancl “generically depicts a handheld washing tool…but provides no detailed structural or operational features relevant to the present claims.” In response, it is noted that Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant further argues that Mancl fails to “provide any suggestion about a possible combination” of the embodiments of figures 4 and 5. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the proposed combination of the embodiments of figures 4 and 5 would provide a cleaning machine capable of both spraying a cleaning fluid and vacuuming dirt and debris using a single motor.
Applicant further argues that Mancl does not disclose “a second duct connecting a waste air vent of the intake part to the dispenser, a specific arrangement of a nebulization area at the outlet of the fluid duct and inner cavity, and a vent hole of smaller size than the outlet opening for waste air”. In response, it is noted that each of these limitations in interpreted to be disclosed as explained in the rejection above. Applicant has not provided any evidence or analysis in support of their assertion that Mancl does not disclose these limitations.
Applicant further argues that Mancl discloses mixing the liquid with air at the Venturi device, not at the claimed nebulization area arranged at the outlet of the dispensing tube and inner cavity. In response, it is noted that these features are not recited in the rejected claim(s) over Mancl. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, Applicant argues that there would be no expectation of success of combining the embodiments of figures 4 and 5 of Mancl. In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, it would be routine for one having ordinary skill to arrange the vacuum components of the embodiment of figure 5 at the air inlet of the embodiment of figure 4.
Regarding the rejections over Mancl in view of Sykes, Applicant argues that Sykes “does not provide the claimed structural relationship between the ducts, nebulizer, and vacuum system” and later “the use of waste air from a vacuum motor for nebulization by directing it through specific ducts to a nebulization area”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that the modification required to arrive at the claimed invention from the cited art is not a simple substitution or combination but would require a significant inventive step. The cited art does not teach or suggest the specific arrangement of cylindrical and truncated-cone portions of the inner cavity and dispensing tube as structurally claimed. In response, it is noted that Sykes is interpreted to teach these limitations as described regarding claims 4-7.
Applicant further argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of an outlet duct with the claimed fluid and air-flow communication arrangement and pressure relationships. In response, it is noted that this feature does not appear to be recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, Applicant argues that neither Mancl nor Sykes teach or suggest such use of waste air, nor do they address the specific problem solved by the present invention. In response, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 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