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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gronau et al (US 2005/0083782).
As to claim 16, Gronau et al. disclose an agitator frame comprising:
A support subframe comprises a drive bar extended vertically; a crossbar coupled to the drive bar extended horizontally
Agitator members coupled to the support subframe, wherein the agitator members comprising first flexible portion at both ends of to the crossbar forming a loop, a second flexible portion to form a flexible side link (annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronau et al (US 2005/0083782).
As to claim 18, Gronau et al. disclose agitator members, but fail to teach a loop. However, since Granau et al disclose the curved agitator configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have it either curved or looped. Such modification is with the design expediency.
As to claim 20, Gronau et al. fail to teach the slant member, but instead disclose a straight member as shown in the annotated figure. However, such modification of either slant or straight would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it is within the design expediency.
As to claim 21, Gronau fails to explicitly disclose the flexible material is more flexible than the drive bar and crossbar. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the drive bar and cross bar to have a stronger material, since it is the base of the tool and need to be sturdy to support the other structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment and argument do not overcome the prior art of record, since the components as claimed were still rejected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant argues that Gronau et al. fail to teach the flexible loop. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in applicant’s invention in figure 5, the agitator loop starts at one end and ended at the other end, NOT forming a loop. Similarly, Gronau et al. has an agitator member that starts at one end and stops at the other end. A loop is defined to be one end touching the other end to form a circle. In this instance, the agitator member of applicant’s invention is not a loop, and therefore, the examiner is interpreting it to be a bent agitator member instead of the circle, 360 degrees, loop.
However, the examiner would like to provide suggestions for applicant to amend the agitator 1st end member connecting at the far end of the crossbar bar and the 2nd end member to connect at the distal end to form a loop with the crossbar. At least this claim language is consistent with figure 5 of applicant’s invention and would overcome the Gronau et al. reference.
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 Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights