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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 8/13/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/13/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the pair of beveled gears" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this claims should depend from claim 8 rather than 5 and is being examined in this manner. Please correct.
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) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bowman (PGPub 20220400900).
Bowman teaches an apparatus for cleaning a surface comprising: a frame (2); an axle (7) extending through the frame, wherein the axle comprises a first rotatable brush (12) on the axle, wherein rotation of the axle causes the first rotatable brush to rotate; a shaft (5) extending orthogonally from the axle, wherein rotation of the shaft causes the axle to rotate, wherein the shaft is configured to be held by a chuck of a rotatable drill (paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 2, a second rotatable brush (12) on the axle.
With regards to claim 3, the first rotatable brush is on a first terminal end of the axle and the second rotatable brush is on a second terminal end of the axle (figure 12).
With regards to claim 4, the first and second rotatable brushes are each disposed outside the housing (figure 5 and 12).
With regards to claim 5, the first rotatable brush is disposed outside a first side of the housing and the second rotatable brush is disposed outside a second side of the housing (figure 5 and 12).
With regards to claim 6, the first rotatable brush is on a terminal end of the axle (figure 12).
With regards to claim 7, the first rotatable brush is positioned on the axle outside the frame (figure 12).
With regards to claim 10, the first rotatable brush comprises bristles (figure 2) that are configured to clean a grill grate when rotated at high speed and contacting the grill grate.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by McLain (PGPub 20150034391).
McLain teaches an apparatus for cleaning a surface comprising: a frame (53); an axle (41) extending through the frame, wherein the axle comprises a first rotatable brush (21; figure 17) on the axle, wherein rotation of the axle causes the first rotatable brush to rotate; a shaft (36) extending orthogonally from the axle, wherein rotation of the shaft causes the axle to rotate, wherein the shaft is configured to be held by a chuck of a rotatable drill (31).
With regards to claim 2, a second rotatable brush (21) on the axle.
With regards to claim 3, the first rotatable brush is on a first terminal end of the axle and the second rotatable brush is on a second terminal end of the axle (figure 17).
With regards to claim 4, the first and second rotatable brushes are each disposed outside the housing (figure 17).
With regards to claim 5, the first rotatable brush is disposed outside a first side of the housing and the second rotatable brush is disposed outside a second side of the housing (figure 17).
With regards to claim 6, the first rotatable brush is on a terminal end of the axle (figure 17).
With regards to claim 7, the first rotatable brush is positioned on the axle outside the frame (figure 17).
With regards to claim 8, the shaft is connected to the axle through a pair of beveled gears (38, 40).
With regards to claim 9, the pair of beveled gears forms a right angle gear pair (figure 12).
With regards to claim 10, the first rotatable brush comprises bristles (figure 17) that are configured to clean a grill grate when rotated at high speed and contacting the grill grate.
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (‘900) in view of McLain (‘391).
Bowman teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention including a worm gear, however fails to teach a bevel gear. McLain teaches a cleaning device with a bevel gear (38, 40). 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 worm gear of Bowman with a bevel gear of McLain since they are both gearing devices that transfer motion between intersecting shafts and therefore, they can be considered equivalent structures.
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