The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received December 10, 2025, amending Claim 1-4 and 6-16 and cancelling Claim 5.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “floor cleaning machine” in Claims 1, 10, 12, 15, and 16, “machine end” in Claims 1, 12, 15, and 16, “clamping elements” in Claims 1-3, and 15, “plug-in member” in Claims 5, 7-10, 13, and 14, and “machine housing” in Claims 15 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. WO 2013/019823 A1 (hereafter Robinson et al.).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Robinson et al. anticipates:
1. A suction foot assembly for attaching to a floor cleaning machine (multi-functional cleaning and floor care system embodiment 10), having a suction foot (squeegee head assembly 20) having a base (top of frame 104, Figure 2) to which are attached a front suction lip (squeegee blade 108) and a rear suction lip (squeegee blade 106) which, extend away from the base (shown in Figure 9) and are mutually spaced apart in such a manner that a suction chamber (suction path between floor and crown 112) is delimited by the suction lips (shown in Figure 9) and the base (shown in Figures 2 and 9),
wherein the edges (bottommost edges in contact with floor, Figure 9) of the suction lips (squeegee blades 106 and 108) that are distal from the base (shown in Figure 9) extend in a contact plane and are configured to bear on a floor area (surface of floor shown in Figure 9) to be cleaned;
having a suction foot holder (assembly comprising connecting arms 99 and 100) which is connected to the base (shown in Figure 2) and has a coupling portion (portion with C-shaped members on end 120 of connecting arms 99 and 100 that connects to hitch crossbar 80, 128);
having a suction foot interface (hitch assembly 74) which extends between a coupling end (end with hitch crossbar 80, 128) and a machine end (end mounted to device at slots 82); wherein the machine end is configured to be attached to a floor cleaning machine (with screws though slots 82 as best shown in Figure 6);
wherein one of the coupling portion and the coupling end (end with hitch crossbar 80, 128) has a pin portion (hinge crossbar 80, 128) which extends along a pin axis (axis of hinge crossbar, Figures 2 and 6) that runs parallel to the contact plane (shown in Figure 2);
wherein the other of the coupling portion (portion with C-shaped members on end 120 of connecting arms 99 and 100 that connects to hitch crossbar 80, 128, Figures 2 and 10) and the coupling end has a first clamping element (end 120 with C-shaped member of connecting arm 99) and a second clamping element (end 120 with C-shaped member of connecting arm 100) which are mutually opposite (Figure 2), have free ends (distalmost flat surfaces at tips of C-shaped members, Figure 10) and run concavely in such a manner that a receptacle portion (concave portion of C-shaped members, Figure 10) in which the pin portion (hinge crossbar 80, 128) is received is formed between the clamping elements (Figures 2 and 10);
wherein the mutual spacing of the free ends (distalmost flat surfaces at tips of C-shaped members, Figure 10) of the clamping elements (ends 120 with C-shaped member of connecting arms 99 and 100) is less than the spacing of the clamping elements in the receptacle portion (concave portion of C-shaped members of connecting arms 99 and 100, Figure 10)(best shown in Figure 10); and
wherein one or both clamping elements (ends 120 with C-shaped member of connecting arms 99 and 100) is/are elastically deformable in such a manner that the pin portion (hinge crossbar 80, 128) can be moved, perpendicularly to the direction of extent of the latter, by way of the free ends (distalmost flat surfaces at tips of C-shaped members, Figure 10) out of the receptacle portion (concave portion of C-shaped members of connecting arms 99 and 100, Figure 10) and into the latter (Page 9 - “end 120 includes an integral resilient generally C-shaped member that releasably snap-fits onto and around the crossbar”);
wherein a plug-in member (right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 that plugs into crown 112, Figure 2) which extends along a first longitudinal axis (axis of right angle fitting parallel with frontmost edge of squeegee head assembly 20 as best shown in Figure 2 below) is attached to (through crown 112) one of the base and the suction foot holder (assembly comprising connecting arms 99 and 100)(cited parts are attached to each other through assembly shown in Figure 2 below), and
wherein on the other of the base (39) and the suction foot holder (assembly comprising connecting arms 99 and 100) is provided a holding portion (crown 112) in which a receptacle region (receives right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22) is configured;
wherein the plug-in member is received in the receptacle region and is in an inserted position (shown in Figure 2 below);
wherein the receptacle region is designed so that the latter extends along a second longitudinal axis (axis of right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 into crown 112 perpendicular to the frontmost edge of squeegee head assembly 20);
wherein the second longitudinal axis runs parallel to the contact plane (floor); and
wherein the plug-in member and the receptacle region are designed in such a manner that the plug-in member for receiving in the receptacle region is able to be inserted into the receptacle region along the second longitudinal axis up to the inserted position, wherein the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis coincide and the plug- in member in the inserted position is pivotable relative to the holding portion about the second longitudinal axis (shown in Figure 2 below). (NOTE: the previous rejection from Claim 5 has not changed, however, Figure 2 has been labeled below to clarify the Examiner’s rejection in response to the Applicant’s arguments).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Amended Claim 2, Robinson et al. anticipates:
2. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the pin portion (hinge crossbar 80, 128) and the receptacle portion (concave portion of C-shaped members of connecting arms 99 and 100, Figure 10) are configured in such a manner that the pin portion is pivotable relative to the clamping elements about the pin axis (axis of hinge crossbar, Figures 2 and 6)(relative pivotability shown in Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding Amended Claim 3, Robinson et al. anticipates:
3. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the pin portion (hinge crossbar 80, 128) is provided on the coupling end (end with hitch crossbar 80, 128), and the first clamping element (end 120 with C-shaped member of connecting arm 99) and the second clamping element (end 120 with C-shaped member of connecting arm 100) are provided on the coupling portion (portion with C-shaped members on end 120 of connecting arms 99 and 100 that connects to hitch crossbar 80, 128, Figures 2 and 10).
Regarding Amended Claim 4, Robinson et al. anticipates:
4. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the base (top of frame 104, Figure 2) extends from a first end (left side wall of squeegee head assembly 20 near label 114 in Figure 2) to a second end (right side wall of squeegee head assembly 20 hidden in Figure 2), and
wherein the pin axis (axis of hinge crossbar, Figures 2 and 6) runs parallel to a connecting line (line between cited walls parallel to floor and parallel to frontmost edge of squeegee head assembly 20), extending parallel to the contact plane, between the ends of the base (best shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Amended Claim 7, Robinson et al. anticipates:
7. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 5, wherein the plug-in member (right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 that plugs into crown 112, Figure 2) has an interior (hollow internal air path of right angle fitting), wherein one of the interior and the receptacle region (receives right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 into crown 112) is connected to the suction chamber (suction path between floor and crown 112); and
wherein the other one of the interior (hollow internal air path of right angle fitting) and the receptacle region is connected to a suction connector (undetailed connection between right angle fitting and vacuum hose 22 shown in Figure 1) for a suction hose (vacuum hose 22), which is provided on the plug- in member (71) or the holding portion (95), and in the inserted position the receptacle region (receives right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 into crown 112) is connected to the interior (connected as claimed with an internal air path).
Regarding Amended Claim 8, Robinson et al. anticipates:
8. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 5, wherein the plug-in member (right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 that plugs into crown 112, Figure 2) is provided on the base (top of frame 104, Figure 2), and the interior (hollow internal air path of right angle fitting) is connected to the suction chamber (suction path between floor and crown 112); and
wherein the plug-in member has a suction connector (undetailed connection between right angle fitting and crown 112 shown in Figure 2) which is connected to the interior (fluidically connected as claimed).
Regarding Amended Claim 9, Robinson et al. anticipates:
9. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 8, wherein the suction connector (undetailed connection between right angle fitting and crown 112 shown in Figure 2) is disposed on a first end face (81) of the plug-in member (right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 that plugs into crown 112, Figure 2) that extends perpendicularly (extends concentrically to crown 112 entrance as shown in Figure 2) to the first longitudinal axis (axis of right angle fitting parallel with frontmost edge of squeegee head assembly 20 as best shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Amended Claim 11, Robinson et al. anticipates:
11. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the front (squeegee blade 108) and rear suction lips (squeegee blade 106) extend away from the base (top of frame 104, Figure 2) in a mutually parallel manner (shown in Figure 9).
Regarding Amended Claim 12, Robinson et al. anticipates:
12. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the machine end (end mounted to device at slots 82) of the suction foot interface (hitch assembly 74) is pivotable relative to the floor cleaning machine (1) about a vertical axis (31).
Regarding Amended Claim 13, Robinson et al. anticipates:
13. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 5, wherein the plug-in member (right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 that plugs into crown 112, Figure 2) has an interior (hollow internal air path of right angle fitting), wherein one of the interior and the receptacle region (receives right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 into crown 112) is connected to the suction chamber (suction path between floor and crown 112); and wherein the one of the interior (hollow internal air path of right angle fitting) and the receptacle region is connected to a suction connector (undetailed connection between right angle fitting and vacuum hose 22 shown in Figure 1) for a suction hose (vacuum hose 22), which is provided on the plug-in member (right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 that plugs into crown 112, Figure 2) or the holding portion.
Regarding Amended Claim 14, Robinson et al. anticipates:
14. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 13, wherein the one of the suction connector (undetailed connection between right angle fitting and vacuum hose 22 shown in Figure 1) is connected to the interior the plug-in member (hollow internal air path of right angle fitting) is in the inserted position (shown connected in Figures 1 and 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. WO 2013/019823 A1 (hereafter Robinson et al.).
Regarding Amended Claim 6, Robinson et al. teaches:
6. The suction foot assembly according to Claim 5, wherein the second longitudinal axis (axis of right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 into crown 112 perpendicular to the frontmost edge of squeegee head assembly 20) and the pin axis (axis of hinge crossbar, Figures 2 and 6) are mutually spaced apart and parallel (see discussion below).
The Applicant’s claim relies upon a receptacle region being designed so that the latter extends along a second longitudinal axis (axis of right angle fitting of vacuum hose 22 into crown 112 perpendicular to the frontmost edge of squeegee head assembly 20). However, as claimed the receptacle region is an unbounded space of arbitrary size and shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely redefine the shape of the claimed receptacle region that results in the second longitudinal axis to be parallel to the frontmost edge of the squeegee head assembly 20. This obvious modification, of not the Robinson et al. device, but the interpretation of the size and shape of the interpreted region, would result in the mutually spaced apart and parallel claim limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, a search of the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the device as claimed in the context of the entire scope of the claims. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art because the device is not taught nor suggested as set forth in the entire context of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed December 10, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 under Robinson et al. WO 2013/019823 A1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the rejection has been modified to reflect the most recent claim language.
The Applicant’s arguments indicated a misunderstanding of the Examiner’s cited first and second longitudinal axis. A labeled Figure 2 has been added to amended Claim 1 to clearly identify the originally intended features. That being said, the rejections stand since Robinson et al. still discloses the claim limitations.
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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723