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) 21-23, 26-32, 35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (US 7048458).
Regarding claim 21, Hall discloses a hard surface cleaning and conditioning assembly for dispensing a conditioning agent, comprising: a pole (including 564’ and 564a’); a trigger (402’) depending from the pole for movement between a normal position and an activated position; a tool (300’) depending from the pole remote from the trigger; a container (500) containing the conditioning agent and having a cap (802’), the cap having a valve (810’) that moves between a closed state and an open state, the valve being in selective fluid communication with the conditioning agent, the valve having a valve stem defining an input opening (818’) at a first end and an outlet opening (808’) at a second end, wherein the input opening is configured to receive the conditioning agent from the container, wherein the valve stem is a one-piece component; a spring (830’) arranged within the cap and configured to bias the valve stem against a valve face and into the closed state (col. 23, line 60 to col. 24, line 6); an agent dispensing device (including 470’ and 478’) depending from the pole proximate the tool, the agent dispensing device having an activation arm (478’) operatively coupled to the trigger (via 440’) and a housing (470’) into which at least a portion of the valve (834’)can be received; and a dispensing tube (504) fluidly and directly coupled to the valve stem at the second end, wherein the housing comprises a guide (including 350’) that guides the dispensing tube to ensure release of the conditioning agent to a desired location, wherein the activation arm moves between a first position when the trigger is in the normal position and a second position when the trigger is in the activated position (col. 27, ll. 7-33), wherein the valve remains in the closed state by means of the spring when the valve is inserted into the dispensing device unless the activation arm is moved to the second position (col. 23, line 60 to col. 24, line 6), and wherein the container, cap, and dispensing tube are removably coupled to the agent dispensing device (see col. 24, ll. 50-60 and col. 28, ll. 27-49).
Regarding claim 22, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the cap is removably connectable directly to the container (see threads of 802’ in Fig. 12A) to place the valve in selective fluid communication with the conditioning agent stored in the container.
Regarding claim 23, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 22, wherein the container is a rigid or flexible container (col. 28, ll. 27-49 implies a rigid container capable of being snapped into place).
Regarding claim 26, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the agent dispensing device lacks any internal volume that can fluidly communicate with the valve in either the open state or the closed state (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 27, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the agent dispensing device lacks any valve (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 28, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the conditioning agent is selected from the group consisting of water, chemical cleaner, wax, disinfectant, sanitizer, sealant, stripping agent, a conditioning agent, and any combinations thereof (col. 18, ll. 42-57).
Regarding claim 29, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the conditioning agent is dispensed under the force of gravity (col. 25, ll. 62-65).
Regarding claim 30, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the pole has an adjusting device configured to adjust a length of the pole (col. 15, ll. 53-60).
Regarding claim 31, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 30, wherein the adjusting device is between the trigger and the agent dispensing device (col. 15, ll. 53-60).
Regarding claim 32, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 31, further comprising a top-hand grip (520) having a portion that includes the trigger disposed thereon (Fig. 14B).
Regarding claim 35, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the activation arm rotates between the first and second positions (about 464’).
Regarding claim 37, Hall discloses the assembly of claim 21, wherein the desired location is the tool or a hard surface proximate the tool (the nozzle 700’ is mounted on clip 350’ such that it sprays proximate the tool).
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, 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) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Irwin (US 2013/0263398).
Regarding claim 24, Hall teaches the assembly of claim 21, but does not teach that the cap is removably connectable directly to an adapter that is in fluid communication with the container to place the valve in selective fluid communication with the conditioning agent stored in the container.
Irwin teaches a cap (29) that is removably connectable directly to an adapter (26) that is in fluid communication with a container (48).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hall such that the cap is removably connectable directly to an adapter that is in fluid communication with the container as taught by Irwin for the purpose of enabling a user to clean a larger area (Irwin, ¶0041). It is noted that this modification would result in placing the valve in selective fluid communication with the conditioning agent in the container.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hall and Irwin teaches the assembly of claim 24, wherein the container is a rigid or flexible container (Irwin, flexible bladder 48).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Rudolph (US 6105194).
Regarding claim 34, Hall teaches the assembly of claim 31, but does not teach a bottom-hand grip that is rotatable with respect to the pole.
Rudolph teaches a bottom-hand grip (5, in particular the grip 5 that is lowest on the pole) that is rotatable with respect to the pole.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Hall with a bottom-hand grip that is rotatable with respect to the pole as taught by Rudolph for the purpose of minimizing wrist strain (Rudolph, col. 1, ll. 5-8).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lowe (US 2228573).
Regarding claim 36, Hall teaches the assembly of claim 21, but does not teach that the activation arm moves linearly between the first and second positions.
Lowe teaches an activation arm (48) that moves linearly (pg. 2, ll. 33-50) between a first position and a second position.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hall such that the activation arm moves linearly between the first and second positions as taught by Lowe, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of simple substitution of one known activation arm with another with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hall does not disclose “wherein the valve remains in the closed state by means of the spring when the valve is inserted into the dispensing device unless the activation arm is moved to the second position”.
Examiner disagrees. Hall discloses that the dome-shaped element 350’ maintains its shape unless compressed in col. 23, line 60 to col. 24, line 6. As shown in Fig. 12C, this shape biases the valve to the closed position. Hall further discloses that the arm 478’ acts on spacer 832’ to compress the dome and open the valve in col. 24, ll. 7-24).
Furthermore, it is noted that the citations in the rejection of claim 21 have been corrected. The actuator fork 478’ reads on the claimed activation arm and the holster sub-assembly 470’ reads on the claimed housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights