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) 1-2, 4-10, 13-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Williams (USPN 5940924).
Williams teaches a cleaning tool accessory attachment comprising: an attachment member (20) (col. 4, lines 24-33) configured to releasably attached to a portion of a water-fed cleaning assembly (not positively claimed); a mounting member (16) releasably connected to the attachment member; and a holding member (24) releasably connected to the mounting member, the holding member comprising at least one retention element (teeth in figure 4) on an exterior surface of the holding member, configured to grip or secure a portion of a surface of a cleaning element (col. 4, lines 36-41) to the holding member, the holding member configured to releasably retain a cleaning element thereon (col. 4, lines 36-41).
With regards to claim 2, the portion of the water-fed cleaning assembly is one of a working head assembly and a pole element of an extendable pole (not positively claimed, but the pole is element 12).
With regards to claim 4, the cleaning element is a scrub pad (col. 8, lines 61-65; brush is a scrubbing member).
With regards to claim 5, a portion of the cleaning element is secured between a portion of the mounting member and a portion of the holding member (it will fit within the clamp).
With regards to claim 6, the holding member has a D-shape geometry (figure 5).
With regards to claim 7, the holding member has a triangular-shape geometry (figure 5 can also represent a triangle with 3 sides).
With regards to claim 8, the at least one retention element comprises teeth (figure 4).
With regards to claim 9, a fastener (col. 5, lines 29-39) releasably connecting the attachment member to the mounting member.
With regards to claim 10, the fastener is one of a quick release fastener or a compression release fastener (col. 5, lines 29-39).
With regards to claim 13, the mounting member comprises a first connector (60) configured to releasably connect with the attachment member and a second connector (67, 70) configured to releasably connect with the holding member.
With regards to claim 14, the holding member comprises a threaded post (col. 5, lines 29-39) on a base of the holding member, wherein the threaded post is configured to be received by and threadedly engage with the second connector of the mounting member.
With regards to claim 15, the first connector of the mounting member is configured to be received between two portions of the attachment member (the first connector is received by the attachment member on all sides since it is circular) and secured thereto by a compressive force (col. 5, lines 29-39).
With regards to claim 17, the holding member comprises a hollow interior with a rib (figure 4, triangular supports) along an interior surface of the holding member, the rib configured to provide structural support to the holding member.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (‘924) in view of Krajicek (USPN 4852210).
Williams (figure 6-8) teaches a cleaning tool accessory attachment comprising: an attachment member (120) configured to releasably attached to a portion of a water-fed cleaning assembly (not positively claimed); a mounting member (116) releasably connected to the attachment member; and a holding member (124) releasably connected to the mounting member, the holding member configured to releasably retain a cleaning element thereon (col. 7, lines 38-52).
Williams ‘924 states that a mop, sponge, or brush can coupled to the holder (124) (col. 7, lines 50-52) however fails to teach the means for connecting the cleaning element.
Krajicek teaches a holding member (9) in the shape of a plate (9) (similar to the holder 124 in Williams ‘924) with a retention member (20) for securing a cleaning element (19) to the holding member. The retention member is protrusions or hook type elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holding member (124) of Williams (‘924) so that there are hook type elements on the surface as taught by Krajicek to secure the mop, sponge, or brush to the holding member.
With regards to claim 2, the portion of the water-fed cleaning assembly is one of a working head assembly and a pole element of an extendable pole (not positively claimed, but the pole is element 112).
With regards to claim 3, a cleaning element (col. 7, lines 38-52) is releasably attached to the holding member.
With regards to claim 9, a fastener (136, 140) releasably connecting the attachment member to the mounting member.
With regards to claim 13, the mounting member comprises a first connector (140) configured to releasably connect with the attachment member and a second connector (col. 7, lines 38-52) configured to releasably connect with the holding member.
With regards to claim 15, the first connector of the mounting member is configured to be received between two portions of the attachment member (figure 6-8) and secured thereto by a compressive force (fastener that fits within 136).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (‘924) in view of Williams (PGPub 20170319041).
Williams (‘924; figure 4) teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach that the mounting member comprises a mounting plate having at least one mounting aperture, and wherein the holding member comprises at least one protrusion on a base of the holding member, the at least one protrusion configured to be received in the at least one mounting aperture (claim 11) and that the at least one protrusion is received in the at least one mounting aperture, relative rotation between the mounting member and the holding member is prevented (claim 12).
Williams (‘041) teaches a mounting member comprises a mounting plate (figure 2/3) having at least one mounting aperture (22), and wherein the holding member (53) comprises at least one protrusion (51) on a base of the holding member, the at least one protrusion configured to be received in the at least one mounting aperture and the at least one protrusion is received in the at least one mounting aperture, relative rotation between the mounting member and the holding member is prevented.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting member of Williams (‘924) so that it comprises a plate with apertures and the holding member comprises protrusions as taught by Williams (‘041) to create a secure connection between the two elements. Further, both ‘924 and ‘041 teach attachment means that are equivalent structures known in the art to secure elements together and therefore, could be used interchangeably.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (‘924) in view of Russo (WO 2018157209).
Williams (figure 6-8) teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach wherein the first connector of the mounting member comprises a plurality of first teeth and each of the two portions of the attachment member comprises a plurality of second teeth, and when the first connector is received and compressed between the two portions, relative rotation between the mounting member and the attachment member is prevented. Russo teaches a first connector with teeth (90) that connect to a portion with a plurality of second teeth (92) that when connected prevent rotation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams first connector and attachment member so that they comprise teeth as taught by Russo to prevent any unnecessary slipping from occurring when force is being applied to the cleaning tool accessory.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (‘924) in view of Russo (WO 2018157209).
With regards to claim 18, Williams teaches a cleaning tool comprising: a pole (12) assembly; a working head (22) assembly attached at one end of the pole assembly; a cleaning tool accessory attachment (figure 2) attached to one of the pole assembly or the working head assembly, the cleaning tool accessory attachment comprising: an attachment member (20) configured to releasably attach to the respective the pole assembly or the working head assembly; a mounting member (16) releasably connected to the attachment member; and a holding member (24) releasably connected to the mounting member, the holding member comprising at least one retention element (teeth in figure 4) on an exterior surface of the holding member, configured to grip or secure a portion of a surface of a cleaning element (col. 4, lines 36-41) to the holding member, the holding member configured to releasably retain the cleaning element thereon,
With regards to claim 19, there is a first cleaning element (attached to 22) attached to the working head assembly and a second cleaning element attached to the holding member (attached to 24).
Williams teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the pole is extendable (claim 18) and that the working head assembly is a water-fed cleaning assembly (claim 20).
Russo teaches a cleaning tool with an extendable handle (figure 7) with a working head that is a water-fed cleaning assembly (via hose 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams so that the handle is extendable and so that the working head is water-fed as taught by Russo to allow the working head to extend to clean out of reach areas, and to allow the cleaning head to apply a cleaning solution to a surface to remove hard to clean debris.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 and 18 to include the limitation that the holding member has a retention element on an exterior surface. The applicant argues that the retention member on Williams is not on an exterior surface of the holding member. In response, as shown in figure 4, the retention member (teeth) can be considered to be on an exterior surface since the exterior surface is not defined. There are several surfaces shown in figure 4 (arrows shown on the figure below demonstrate the various surfaces of the holding member). All of these surfaces could be described as an exterior surface. The applicant needs to clarify what is considered to be an exterior surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723