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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kohl et al., WO 2017/174159.
Regarding claim 1, Kohl et al. disclose a dustpan having: a base (5, capable of collecting dust, see also MPEP 2111) having an upper surface for collection of waste (within compartments 13) and a lower surface for resting on a floor (not shown resting on floor, however wall 11 is capable of resting on the floor, see Figures); wherein: the base is substantially rectangular (see Figures); the base having a first pair of opposing edges which are longer than a second pair of opposing edges (first pair of edges are the right and left edges of 11 as oriented in Figure 4, the second pair of edges are the bottom and top edges of 11 as oriented in Figure 4; see also page 10 lines 16-19 that discuss dimensions of the entire apparatus); the base comprises an elongate channel extending from a first of the second pair of side edges to a second of the second pair of opposing edges of the base (31); the channel is substantially parallel to the first pair of opposing edges (Figure 4); the channel is open to the lower surface of the base (Figure 4) and configured to house a shaft of a broom to releasably attached the dustpan thereto (capable of receiving a handle shaft, 17). Also regarding claim 1 please note that a broom is not positively recited in the structure of a dustpan, MPEP 2115 recites that “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).” Regarding claim 3, the channel is positioned on the dustpan such that a weight distribution to either side of the channel is around 50/50 (as the channel is positioned symmetrically at the center, see Figures). Regarding claim 4, the channel is positioned substantially centrally between a front edge and a rear edge of the dustpan (front and rear edges are the left and rightmost edges of 11 as oriented in Figure 4).
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(s) 2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl et al., WO 2017/174159 in view of Moore et al., US 8,100,446.
Kohl discloses all elements previously mentioned above and states that the cross-sectional shape of the channel (31) has slightly larger dimensions than a cross-sectional area of handle (17, page 13 lines 2-6). Kohl fails to disclose that the channel is substantially semi-cylindrical or that the channel comprises at least one narrowed portion.
Regarding claim 2, Moore et al. teach a dustpan having a base (30) that includes a channel (33) that is open and semi-cylindrical in shape (c-shaped, Figure 7), and thus configured to house a shaft of a broom that has a cylindrical cross-sectional shape to releasably attach the dustpan thereto (11, Figure7). Regarding claim 6, the channel comprises narrowed portions (at 35) configured to grip a shaft of a broom (column 3 lines 50-51). Regarding claim 7, the channel comprises a first narrowed portion adjacent a first end of the channel (one of 35, Figure 7) and a second narrowed portion adjacent a second end of the handle (other of 35, Figure 7). These narrowed portions engage a handle that is inserted into the channel so that a user can manually remove the handle as needed (column 3 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the channel of Kohl et al. to have a substantially semi-cylindrical channel so as to correspond in shape to a handle that is cylindrical, as taught by Moore et al., and also it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the channel of Kohl et al. to include narrowed portions including a first narrowed portion adjacent a first end of the channel and a second narrowed portion adjacent a second end of the channel, as taught by Moore et al., to secure the handle to the channel of the dustpan in a manner that a user can also manually remove the handle when necessary.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl et al., WO 2017/174159 in view of DeMars, US 5,611,450.
Kohl et al. discloses all elements previously mentioned above and that the dustpan (11) is used in the field of endeavor of sweeping (page 1 lines 7-25), but does not positively set forth that it is part of a system that additionally includes a broom.
Regarding claim 13, DeMars, like Kohl et al., teaches a system of many components and includes in combination a dustpan/receptacle (12, 38) that has a channel (16) that receives a broom handle (22) for a broom (20). DeMars teaches that the broom is for collecting and sweeping loose debris into a dustpan (Abstract) and the broom handle (22) is intended to fit within the channel (16, Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dustpan of Kohl et al. to be part of a combination system including a broom capable of being received in a channel, as taught by DeMars, to provide a user a tool with which to sweep debris into the dustpan.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl et al., WO 2017/174159 and DeMars, US 5,611,450 as applied to claim 13, in view of Moore, US 8,100,446.
Kohl et al. discloses all elements previously mentioned above, however fails to disclose that the broom comprises at least one collar of greater diameter than the shaft and that a portion of the channel is sized to accommodate the collar when the dustpan is attached to the broom.
Regarding claim 14, Moore et al. teach a dustpan (31) in combination with a broom (10), the broom comprises at least one collar (12a-12c) of greater diameter than its shaft (11) and a portion of an open channel within the dustpan (33) is sized to accommodate the at least one collar when the dustpan is attached to the broom (as shown in Figure 7). Regarding claim 15, a portion of the channel of the dustpan that is sized to accommodate a collar is a portion of the channel located between two narrowed portions of channel (Figure 7, the portion of the channel between 35 is sized to accommodate a collar). It is noted that the broom has collars are formed on handle sections (11a-11d), the handle sections are part of a telescoping handle, the telescoping handle allows the handle to be retracted or extended (column 2 lines 49-62).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the broom handle of Kohl et al. and DeMars to be telescopic and having collars, as taught by Moore et al., so that the broom handle can be extended or retracted to reach specific areas for cleaning and also it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corresponding channel of the dustpan of Kohl et al. and DeMars to be sized to accommodate the collar taught by Moore et al., so that the broom can be secured to the dustpan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record teaches or suggests the invention of claims 8-12. In particular, Kohl et al. fail to teach that one of the first pair of side edges is a front edge over which waste is to be swept, the other of the first pair of side edges being an opposing rear edge; the dustpan comprising a dividing wall extending between the second pair of opposing edges; the dividing wall extending upwardly from a part of the base that defines a wall of the channel and partitions the base of the dustpan into a frontal waste-collection area and a rear foot grip area. Previously cited Mitchell (CA 2623981) teaches a dustpan that is distinctly triangular in shape and its base is not substantially rectangular and its elongated channel does not extend from a first side edge to a second of a pair of opposing side edges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 July 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kohl et al., WO 2017/174159.
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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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 at 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 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg