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
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 2/11/2026. Claims 1-17 and 20-21 are pending in the application. Claims 8 and 20 have been withdrawn, claim 18 has been cancelled, and claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 21 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 8 and 18 are obviated by Applicant's withdrawal and cancellation, respectively.
The rejections of claims 3, 5, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is maintained.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of objection are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claim 6, please delete “that have been disinfected are logged” for clarity.
- Claim 7, please delete “are mapped onto a representation of the facility” for clarity.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites a “a wide mouth breather cap” which is being interpreted as a standard cap for a disinfectant storage tank.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites a “custom mounting bracket,” and it is unclear what structure, or dimensions make the mounting bracket “custom.” The specification does not provide further structure about the mounting bracket nor its mechanisms so it will be interpreted as a generic mounting structure under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 110338705) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/23/2022) in view of Kim (KR 20200092262 A), McCreery et al. (US 20210290806 A1) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 6/1/2020 and cited in the last action), and Damaschke et al. (US 20190045997 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a public space cleaning device [abstract] wherein the device (Fig. 1-2, 100, 200) is capable of automatically sensing and identifying human waste, such as vomit, and automatically clean the waste (page 3, para 9 = understood to be semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus). Hu further teaches wherein the device comprises:
a frame (101) supporting at least one storage volume (304);
a drive system (500) supported by the frame and configured to move the frame along a surface;
a cleaning assembly (300) coupled to the frame and configured to transfer debris from the surface to the at least one storage volume (304) as the drive system moves the cleaning assembly along the surface (page 5, para 6-7);
a front or rear sensing module (401, 404) comprising a plurality of sensors capable of computing and guiding the path and direction of the cleaning apparatus (page 6, para 3-4);
a disinfection module to spray a disinfectant solution (page 4, para 6), the disinfection module further comprising: a control system (400); a sprayer module (204); a storage tank to store a disinfection solution (201); and a pump system configured to pump the disinfection module to be dispelled through the sprayer module (202);
an electronics system (400) supported by the frame and including at least a memory and a processor (403), the processor being configured to execute a set of instructions stored in the memory and receiving input from the front and rear sensing module to perform at least one or more actions in relations to the disinfection module (page 6, para 3-5).
Hu does not teach wherein the sprayer module is configured to spray the disinfection solution at different spray angles. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with effectively spraying an entire target area, motivating one to turn towards Kim.
Kim teaches an autonomous disinfecting device [abstract] comprising an injection unit (110) configured to spray a disinfecting solution via a spray nozzle (111), wherein the height, position, and angle of the nozzle may be adjusted (page 4, para 1-7) via an angle adjustment member (310) (page 8, para 1-4).
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer module as taught by Hu to include the spray nozzle and angle adjustment member as taught by Kim to disinfect a wider surface area from a plurality of angles in a target area and provide increased coverage and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Hu does not teach wherein the sprayer module further comprises a replaceable atomization module configured to support multiple nozzle positions One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with performing maintenance on damaged nozzles, motivating one to turn towards McCreery. McCreery teaches a mobile system for decontamination comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to eject a cleaning solution [0036] wherein the nozzles are removably coupled to a fluid manifold containing the cleaning solution [0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer module as taught by Modified Hu to have removable nozzles as taught by McCreery to make maintenance on the sprayer nozzles easier and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Further, the separation of parts has also been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
Modified Hu does not teach wherein the sprayer module further comprises a LED spotlight configured to illuminate the target area and make a spray pattern visible. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned delivering with an adequate quantity and placement of the sprayed disinfectant motivating one to turn towards Damaschke. Damaschke teaches a cleaning device with a plurality of nozzles configured to distribute a disinfectant onto a floor wherein the nozzles contain LED lights (Fig. 2B, 31) that illuminate a target surface and spray so that a user can see the spray pattern and determine if an adequate quantity of disinfectant has been applied [0026-0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer module as taught by Modified Hu to include the illuminating LEDs as taught by Damaschke because Damaschke teaches the LEDs to allow a user to judge a placement and quantity of disinfectant solution ejected from a nozzle [0026-0027] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the disinfection solution sprayed by the disinfection module is water (Hu, page 2, para 7) but does not teach wherein the disinfection solution is selected from a list consisting of quaternary ammonium, hydrogen peroxide and iso-propyl.
McCreery teaches a mobile, autonomous disinfection system ([abstract], [0014]) comprising a plurality of sterilizing nozzles (202), for distributing a disinfectant solution [0030] wherein the disinfectant solution may comprise hydrogen peroxide [0044].
McCreery is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disinfectant solution as taught by Modified Hu to include the hydrogen peroxide disinfectant solution as taught by McCreery since hydrogen peroxide was a well-known disinfectant in the art and would provide effective disinfection of a target area and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2144.06(I).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sprayer module further comprises two spray housing nozzles (Hu, 204; Kim, 111), wherein each nozzle is understood to have a singular head but does not teach wherein the sprayer module comprises a spray housing nozzle having at least three nozzle heads.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the output of disinfecting solution and seek to optimize the spraying of solution to minimize disinfection time, motivating one to turn towards Damaschke. Damaschke teaches a cleaning device with a sprayer head (Fig. 2B, 20) with three nozzle heads (Fig. 2B, nozzle heads 30) configured to distribute a disinfectant onto a floor [0021], wherein the arrangements of the nozzles may provide a uniform spray pattern and greater residence time for debris on the target surface [0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray nozzles as taught by Modified Hu to include the plurality of nozzle heads as taught by Damaschke because Damaschke teaches the nozzle heads to provide a uniform spray pattern and greater residence time for debris on the target surface [0048] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 18, wherein the sprayer module is adjustably mounted on the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus (Kim, page 4, para 1-7).
Regarding claim 21, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured for obstacle avoidance and slows-down the apparatus (Hu, obstacle avoidance module 404 is configured to avoid obstacles and is understood to be capable of slowing down apparatus, page 6, para 1-2).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 110338705) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/23/2022) in view of Kim (KR 20200092262 A), McCreery et al. (US 20210290806 A1), and Damaschke et al. (US 20190045997 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang (CN 202875861 U) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/23/2022).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein the disinfection module comprises a nozzle (Hu, 204) but does not teach wherein the module further comprising a fan, an atomizer nozzle, and an electrostatic module.
Zhang teaches a high-pressure electrostatic spray sterilizer (Fig. 1, [abstract], [0013]) comprising an electrostatic generator (4) connected to an atomization nozzle (7) to generate a spray of sterilizing solution [0008]. Zhang teaches the electrostatic atomization to reduce the size of aerosolized solution which improves sterilization efficiency [0008] and further teaches an axial flow fan (3) to increase the distance the aerosolized solution can be distributed [0014].
Zhang is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfecting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disinfection module as taught by Modified Hu with the electrostatic generator, atomization nozzle, and axial fan as taught by Zhang since Zhang teaches these components to improve sterilization efficiency of an aerosolized cleaning solution ([0008], [0014]) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 2, wherein the fan is a direct current DC fan (Zhang, axial fan 3 is understood to be a direct current fan).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 2, wherein the distance between the atomizer nozzle and a vertical surface to be disinfected is controlled during disinfection (Kim, nozzles are adjustable, page 4, para 1-7).
Claim(s) 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 110338705) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/23/2022) in view of Kim (KR 20200092262 A), McCreery et al. (US 20210290806 A1), and Damaschke et al. (US 20190045997 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sheikh (US 20160309973 A1) (same patent family as CA 2983944 C, which was cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/23/2022).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1 including a processor (Hu, 403) but does not teach wherein the processor is configured to log the locations and surfaces within a facility that have been disinfected.
Sheikh teaches a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus (100, [abstract]) including an electronic system (190) configured to execute a set of instructions stored within a memory of the apparatus [0069] including mapping a surface within an environment [0056], cleaning an environment, and incorporating one or more changes of the environment [0072] which is understood to be logging locations and surfaces that have been disinfected.
Sheikh is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor as taught by Modified Hu with the electronic system as taught by Sheikh to control operating conditions for a robot based on logged disinfection data for a mapped area within a target space and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1 including a processor (Hu, 403) but does not teach wherein the processor is configured to map the locations and surfaces within a facility that have been disinfected onto a representation of the facility.
Sheikh teaches a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus (100, [abstract]) including an electronic system (190) configured to execute a set of instructions stored within a memory of the apparatus [0069] including mapping a surface within an environment [0056], cleaning an environment, and incorporating one or more changes of the environment [0072] which is understood to be mapping areas and surfaces that have been disinfected onto a representation of a facility.
Sheikh is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor as taught by Modified Hu with the electronic system as taught by Sheikh since Sheikh teaches the electronic system to map disinfected areas of a facility on a representation of the facility and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 110338705) in view of Kim (KR 20200092262 A), McCreery et al. (US 20210290806 A1) and Damaschke et al. (US 20190045997 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Lawson (US 7021571 B1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/23/2022).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Hu teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 10, comprising a plurality of nozzle and nozzle heads (Hu, 204; Kim, 111), but does not teach wherein the nozzle heads is selected from a list consisting of a wide cone spray nozzle, a narrow cone spray nozzle, and a fan spray nozzle.
Lawson teaches a spray device with a flat fan nozzle [abstract] wherein the flat fan spray nozzle (230) has a flat spray pattern that allows the user to reach difficult areas such as room corners that conical spray patterns cannot reach (col 1, lines 53-67).
Lawson is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the cleaning arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spray nozzle heads as taught by Modified Hu with the flat fan nozzle head as taught by Lawson since Lawson teaches the flat nozzle to eject a flat spray pattern that allows the user to reach difficult areas such as room corners that conical spray patterns cannot reach (col 1, lines 53-67) and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 9 and 12-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 110338705) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/23/2022 in view of Kim (KR 20200092262 A), McCreery et al. (US 20210290806 A1), and Damaschke et al. (US 20190045997 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Knutson (US 20170049288 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sprayer module further comprises a sprayer head assembly (Hu, 204), an adjustment knob (Kim, adjustment member 310, understood to be a knob under broadest reasonable interpretation, page 8, para 1-4), a power distribution module (Hu, 600), and a solution hose (Hu, 203). Modified Hu does not teach wherein the sprayer module comprises a plurality of LED lights and an electrode module. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the safety of the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus and want to prevent users in the area from interacting with the device while operational or slipping on excess fluid ejected from the spray nozzles.
Knuston teaches a control system for a robotic cleaning device [abstract] wherein the system comprises a mobile device (10) including a scrubber (30) with a plurality of spray nozzles [0022], a mop system (22) to soak excess solution emitted with the spray nozzles [0033], an electrode module (44a) to detect a concentration of solution left behind by the mop system [0034], and status light system (16) configured with a plurality of LEDs to indicate the operational status of the device [0026].
Knuston is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray module as taught by Modified Hu with the plurality of LEDs as taught by Knuston since Knuston teaches the LEDs to display the operational status of a disinfection device [0026] which would prevent users from interacting with the device while operational and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Further, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray module as taught by Modified Hu to include the mop system and electrode module as taught by Knuston since Knuston teaches the mop system to soak excess solution emitted with the spray nozzles [0033], an electrode module (44a) to detect a concentration of solution left behind by the mop system and alert users [0034] which would increase safety and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a power distribution module (Hu, power source 601), a plastic solution tank (Hu, 201), a dust cover (Hu, chassis 101), and an electrical panel (Hu, information processing module 400 understood to be a circuit board). Modified Hu does not teach a power button or a safety system.
Knuston teaches a control system for a robotic cleaning device [abstract] wherein the system comprises a mobile device (10) including a scrubber (30) with a plurality of spray nozzles [0022] and a control panel (18) connected to a remote fob (90) via wireless connection and button (93, [0027], [0061]). Knuston further teaches wherein the fob functions as safety system that can indicate operational data about the mobile device to the user [0062] and can allow for a remote stoppage of the mobile device [0063].
Knuston is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semi-autonomous semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus as taught by Modified Hu with remote fob and control panel as taught by Knuston since Knuston teaches the two components to be in communication and remotely stop a mobile cleaning system with a safety button [0062-0063] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 12, wherein the safety system further comprises an emergency stop button (Knuston, fob 90 has button 93, [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 12, including a dust cover (Hu, 101) but does not wherein the dust cover further comprises a visual level indicator.
Knuston teaches a control system for a robotic cleaning device [abstract] wherein the system comprises a mobile device (10) including a scrubber (30) with a plurality of spray nozzles [0022], a mop system (22) to soak excess solution emitted with the spray nozzles [0033], an electrode module (44a) to detect a concentration of solution left behind by the mop system [0034], and status light system (16) configured with a plurality of LEDs to indicate the operational status of the device [0026].
Knuston further teaches wherein mobile cleaning device (10) containers a tank level sensor ((80), [0031]) to determine the level of liquid cleaning solution in a cleaning solution tank [0047] and alert an operator [0049] via fob ((90), [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dust cover as taught by Modified Hu with the tank level sensor as taught by Knuston since Knuston teaches the level sensor to determine the level of liquid cleaning solution in a cleaning solution tank [0047] and alert an operator [0049] via fob ((90),[0062]) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pump system further comprises a pump (Hu, 202) but does not teach a wide mouth breather cap, custom mounting brackets, and level sensors.
Knuston teaches a control system for a robotic cleaning device [abstract] wherein the system comprises a mobile device (10) including a scrubber (30) with a plurality of spray nozzles [0022], a mop system (22) to soak excess solution emitted with the spray nozzles [0033], wherein the mop system can be mounted to the device via a mounting member (65) which is understood to be mounting bracket [0033]. Knuston further teaches wherein mobile cleaning device (10) containers a tank level sensor ((80), [0031]) to determine the level of liquid cleaning solution in a cleaning solution tank [0047] and alert an operator [0049] via fob ((90), [0062]) when the solution is low. Knuston also teaches wherein the tank (70) is accessible via cap (62) which is understood to be a wide mouth breather cap under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Knuston is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfecting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pump system as taught by Modified Hu with the tank level sensor and cap as taught by Knuston since Knuston teaches the level sensor to determine the level of liquid cleaning solution in a cleaning solution tank [0047] and alert an operator [0049] when the solution level is low and provide access to the storage tank to refill the solution via cap (62) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Further, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump system as taught by Modified Hu to include the mop system and mounting member as taught by Knuston since Knuston teaches the mop system to soak excess solution left behind by the spray nozzles solution [0033-0034] which would increase safety and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the apparatus further comprises an electronic display configured to show a graphical user interface (GUI) of the different operating modes of the disinfection module.
Knuston teaches a control system for a robotic cleaning device [abstract] wherein the system comprises a mobile device (10) including a control panel (18) comprising a graphical user interface (GUI) touch-screen device (84), to allow a user to select between multiple operating modes and routes for the mobile device [0064-0065].
Knuston is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus as taught by Modified Hu with the touch-screen GUI as taught by Knuston since Knuston teaches the GUI to allow for the selection of multiple paths/routes for the mobile device. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Hu teaches the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus of claim 16 wherein the different operating modes is selected from a list consisting of Cleaning Only, Disinfecting Only, Cleaning and Disinfecting, Basic Hardware diagnostics and Light diagnostics (Knuston, GUI panel 84 understood to be capable of displaying a list including these modes).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 8-9 of the amendment, filed 2/11/2026, the Applicant argues that Hu does not teach a replaceable atomization nozzle configured to support multiple nozzle positions and an LED spotlight configured to illuminate the target area and make a spray pattern visible with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art McCreery et al. (US 20210290806 A1) and Damaschke et al. (US 20190045997 A1). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 10 of the amendment, filed 2/11/2026, the Applicant argues that Modified Hu does not teach a spray housing nozzle having at least three nozzle heads and instead teaches multiple separate nozzles each having a single head configured to map with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Damaschke et al. (US 20190045997 A1). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 10 of the amendment, filed 2/11/2026, the Applicant argues that claim 4 should not be interpreted in light of MPEP 2115 and should be given patentable weight as the claim further limits the disinfectant solution as recited by claim 1 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the claim will be given patentable weight. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 11-12 of the amendment, filed 2/11/2026, the Applicant argues that the limitation “custom mounting brackets” has been amended to “mounting brackets” which renders the rejection moot with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive as amended claim 15, as submitted in the amendments filed 2/11/2026, does not recite the alleged amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights