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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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, 13, 17-19, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozier (FR 2614188) in view of Schulz (DE 102020005781).
Rozier teaches a dish brush for conventional sweeping machines that clean, brush or sweep paved surfaces, wherein the comprising a central base plate (13) and a plurality of demountable or removable segmental plates (16) each elements provided with multiple brush plugs (3), wherein said central base plate is provided with I-shape radial profiles (14) with respective axes radially directed toward a center of said central base plate, wherein said demountable segmental plates are trapezoidal (figure 1) and are each slidable with the respective brush plugs between respective two of the I-shaped radial profiles and are each locked to the central base plate by a respective single screw bolt (17) in a single borehole (18, 19).
Rozier teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a polygonal central base plate. Schulz teaches a street sweeper with a polygonal base plate (figure 3.1, triangle with rounded corners). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rozier so that the base plate is polygonal as taught by Schulz since modifying the shape is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of the central plate because the applicant has not disclosed that polygonal shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either shape as taught by Rozier or the claimed polygonal shape as taught by Schulz because both shapes perform the same function of street sweeping equally well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rozier to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regards to claim 13, said demountable segmental plate elements are each provided with a respective segmental rounded plate part (outer surface of 16) on a radially outer side to provide the dish brush with a circular periphery, wherein the segmental rounded plate parts have a thickness equal to a thickness of the segmental plate elements.
With regards to claim 17, said I-shaped radial profiles are disposed at apices of said polygonal central base plate.
With regards to claim 18, Rozier teaches a dish brush for conventional sweeping machines that clean, brush or sweep paved surfaces, comprising a central base plate (13) and a plurality of demountable or removable segmental plates (16) each provided with multiple brush plugs (3), wherein said central base plate is provided along an outer periphery with a plurality of angularly spaced connector elements configured for receiving said demountable or removable segmental plates (14), further comprising locking or attachment elements engageable with said demountable or removable segmental plates and said polygonal central base plate, said locking or attachment elements being configured for releasably attaching said demountable or removable segmental plates to said polygonal central base plate (17, 19).
Rozier teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a polygonal central base plate. Schulz teaches a street sweeper with a polygonal base plate (figure 3.1, triangle with rounded corners). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rozier so that the base plate is polygonal as taught by Schulz since modifying the shape is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of the central plate because the applicant has not disclosed that polygonal shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either shape as taught by Rozier or the claimed polygonal shape as taught by Schulz because both shapes perform the same function of street sweeping equally well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rozier to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
With regards to claim 19, said angularly spaced connector elements comprise I-shaped radial profiles with respective axes radially directed toward a center of said central base plate.
With regards to claim 24, said demountable segmental plate elements are each provided with a respective segmental rounded plate part (outer surface of 16) on a radially outer side to provide the dish brush with a circular periphery, wherein the segmental rounded plate parts have a thickness equal to a thickness of the segmental plate elements.
With regards to claim 26, said locking or attachment elements comprise respective single screw bolts (17) inserted through boreholes (18, 19) in said demountable or removable segmental plates and said polygonal central base plate.
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) 3, 9-12, 14-16, 20-23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozier (FR 2614188) and Schulz (DE 102020005781) in view of EP 4000452.
With regards to claim 3, 14, 20 and 25, Rozier and Schulz teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach that the central base plate has a raised contour (edge plates) fixed to said planar center portion and inclined at an angle of up to 30 degrees relative to said planar center portion, wherein the demountable segmental plate elements are each slidable to mount between the respective two I-shaped profiles and are each fixed to the raised contour (edge plates) of the central base plate with said respective single screw bolt.
EP ‘452 teaches a central base plate with a raised contour (3) fixed to the planar center portion (2) and inclined at an angle of up to 30 degrees (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rozier so that the central base plate has a raised contour as taught by EP ‘452 to allow for the brush plugs to contact a surface at an angle which thus provides a better cleaning experience. Further, the raised contour (edge plates) would then have the attached plate elements be inclined and parallel.
With regards to claim 9 and 24, said demountable segmental plate elements of Rozier are each provided with a respective segmental rounded plate part (outer side of 16) on a radially outer side to give the dish brush a circular periphery, wherein the segmental rounded plate parts have a thickness equal to a thickness of the segmental plate elements.
With regards to claim 10 and 21, the raised contour of Rozier and ‘452 comprises a plurality of contour edge plates each mounted along opposing edges to a pair of the I-shaped radial profiles (top surface of 14 in Rozier).
With regards to claim 11 and 22, Rozier in view of ‘452 teaches that the contour edge plates are fixed relative to said planar center portion and are inclined at said angle relative to said planar center portion (the plates of Rozier are connected to the center portion and when modified with ‘452 the plates would be inclined).
With regards to claim 12 and 23, Rozier teaches that said I-shaped radial profiles are disposed at apices of said planar center portion and are connected to said planar center portion, each of said contour edge plates (Rozier in view of ‘452) being attached along the respective opposing edges to the respective pair of the I-shaped radial profiles.
Rozier and ‘452 teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach welding as the means for connecting the radial profiles and the edge plates. 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 connection means as taught by Rozier so that they are welded since welding would provide a stronger and more permanent connection.
With regards to claim 15, the planar contour edge plates are affixed to the planar center portion via two of the I-shaped radial profiles (Rozier teaches an edge plate 14 that extends between two I-shaped profiles).
With regards to claim 16, said I-shaped radial profiles are disposed at apices of said planar center portion and are welded to said planar center portion, said contour edge plates being welded to the I-shaped radial profiles.
Rozier and ‘452 teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach welding as the means for connecting the radial profiles and the edge plates. 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 connection means as taught by Rozier so that they are welded since welding would provide a stronger and more permanent connection.
Conclusion
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