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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the receiving head movably disposed on at least a portion of the shaft, a detachably connected base, at least one motor (the space for the motor is shown in Figure 2 but not the motor) and the structure allowing the shaft to pivot must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because :
Figure 2 is indicated as a sectional view in the specifications [0015] and [0047]. CFR 1.83 3) describes sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
Reference numerals (131) and (132) are in different locations in Figures 1 and 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites “the shaft pivots…” however, the specifications and figures fail to describe what structure the applicant had possession at the time of filing to allow the shaft (122) to pivot.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Claims 1 and 5 recites “a receiving head movably disposed on at least a portion of the shaft…” and “the receiving head is distanced away from the shaft” but it is unclear to the examiner how the receiving head is both on at least a portion of the shaft and distanced away from the shaft. Based upon the specifications and figures of the instant application, examiner interprets the limitation to have the receiving head is disposed on the movable rod and there is a gap between the receiving head and the shaft.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (Dollar-Wright (US 2008/0230246).
Regarding Claim 1, Dollar-Wright teaches a handheld cleaning device (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a main body (Ref. 20, Fig. 3 annotated below) to facilitate gripping thereof ([0071] describes a handle); and
an attachment assembly, comprising:
a base (See annotated Fig. 3 below) detachably connected to at least a portion of the main body (Fig. 1-3),
a shaft (Ref. 25, Fig. 2) disposed on at least a portion of the base extending away from the base (Fig. 1-3),
a receiving head (Ref. 24, Fig. 2) movably disposed on at least a portion of the shaft (Fig. 2) to receive at least one cleaning attachment (Ref. 40A-40L, Fig. 1, [0074]) thereon, and
at least one motor (Ref. 22&18, Fig. 3, examiner interprets the movable rod (18) as part of the motor) movably disposed within at least a portion of the base (Fig. 1-2 show a portion of the motor (18) is within a portion of the base) to move the shaft in response to movement of the at least one motor ([0072] describes the motor (22) to drive the shaft 25 in a rotational movement).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Dollar-Wright teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dollar-Wright further teaches wherein the shaft is perpendicularly disposed away from the base (Fig. 1-3 show the shaft is perpendicular away from the base).
Regarding Claim 4, Dollar-Wright teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dollar-Wright further teaches wherein the receiving head (24) moves clockwise in a first rotational direction (Fig. 4, [0072] describes the receiving head (24) moves to deliver a rotational movement in a clockwise direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dollar-Wright as applied to claims 1-2, and 4 above, and further in view of Guyuron (2006/0168746).
Regarding Claim 3, Dollar-Wright teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the shaft pivots in a first lateral direction or a second lateral direction over the base. Guyuron teaches a handheld cleaning device with a main body and attachment assembly and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Guyuron further teaches a shaft (Ref. 252, Fig. 12) that is driven by a motor that can rotate and pivots in a first lateral direction ([0008&0098] describes the shaft portion is pivotably connected to the body portion and can rotate) over the base (Ref. 250, Fig .12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motor, as taught by Dollar-Wright, with the motor that allows the shaft to rotate and pivot in a first lateral direction over the base, as taught by Guyuron, to yield the predictable result of moving the cleaning implement for washing and to add further functionality of dual motion to increase cleaning of hard to reach surfaces ([0004-0008]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dollar-Wright as applied to claims 1-2, and 4 above, and further in view of Goldstein (US 3,343,192).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b), Dollar-Wright teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the receiving head is at the end of a receiving portion such that the receiving head is distanced away from a shaft, such that the receiving head and the shaft have a gap therebetween. Goldstein teaches a handheld cleaning device with a main body, attachment assembly, and shaft and motor and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Goldstein further teaches an attachment assembly comprising a shaft (Ref. 22a', Fig. 15) disposed on at least a portion of a base (Ref. 22a'', Fig. 15) extending away from the base (Fig. 15), a receiving head (Ref. 65, Fig. 15) is distanced away from the shaft (fig. 15), such that the receiving head and the shaft have a gap therebetween (fig. 15), and at least one motor (Ref. 104, Fig. 15) to move at least one of the shaft with a movable rod (Ref. 104a’, Fig. 15) and the receiving head in response to movement of the at least one motor ([Col. 4, Line 46-47] describes the motor to drive the shaft and head in a rotational movement). Given the teachings that another embodiment of Goldstein has only has a handheld cleaning device with a shaft, a receiving head, and a motor to move at least one of the shaft and the receiving head in response to movement of the at least one motor (See at least Figure 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shaft, receiving head, and motor configuration, as taught by Dollar-Wright, with the shaft, movable rod, receiving head, and motor configuration with the receiving head is distanced away from the shaft, as taught by Goldstein, to yield the predictable results of rotating the receiving head.
Regarding Claim 6, Dollar-Wright as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teaches wherein the attachment assembly further comprises: a movable rod to connect the receiving head to the at least one motor. Goldstein teaches a handheld cleaning device with a main body, attachment assembly, and shaft and motor and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Goldstein further teaches an attachment assembly comprising a shaft (Ref. 22a', Fig. 15) disposed on at least a portion of a base (Ref. 22a'', Fig. 15) extending away from the base (Fig. 15), a receiving head (Ref. 65, Fig. 15), and a movable rod (Ref. 104a’, Fig. 15) within the shaft to connect the receiving head to at least one motor (Ref. 104, Fig. 15). Given the teachings that another embodiment of Goldstein has only has a handheld cleaning device with a shaft, a receiving head, and a motor to move at least one of the shaft and the receiving head in response to movement of the at least one motor (See at least Figure 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shaft, receiving head, and motor configuration, as taught by Dollar-Wright, with the shaft, receiving head, and movable rod within the shaft to connect the receiving head to at least one motor, as taught by Goldstein, to yield the predictable results of rotating the receiving head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments fail to address the drawing objections and no new drawings have been filed, therefore, examiner maintains the drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 2 are acknowledged and examiner withdraws the claim objections.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments fail to address the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1 and 5. Examiner maintains the 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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’s arguments recite the amendments made to claim 1 put the claim in condition for allowance. However, applicant fails to specifically point out how the language of the claim distinguishes over the Dollar-Wright reference. A mere statement of allowability does not put the limitations in condition for allowance.
Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 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
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723