DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 5-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 5-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumhardt et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0069748) in view of Longhenry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0001054).
Concerning claim 1, Blumhardt discloses a floor cleaner and dock assembly, comprising:
A floor cleaner (14) including a reservoir (84) for containing waste liquid (paragraph 66); and
A dock (12) for receiving the floor cleaner (14), the dock comprising:
A receiving unit (28/38/56) for receiving the floor cleaner (Figure 5; paragraphs 59-62); and
An applicator (30) arranged to apply the disinfecting liquid to the reservoir (84) for containing waste liquid when the floor cleaner is received in the receiving unit (paragraphs 70-74, 92 & 93).
Regarding claim 10, Blumhardt further discloses a method of cleaning a floor cleaner (14), the method comprising the steps of:
Docking the floor cleaner (14) with the dock (12) comprising the limitations as set forth above disclosed in claim 1 (Figures 1, 2 and 5), such that the floor cleaner (14) is received in the receiving unit of the dock (12), and the applicator applying disinfecting liquid to at least part of the floor cleaner (paragraphs 59-62, 70-74, 92 and 93).
With respect to claims 1, 10 & 11, Blumhardt does not appear to disclose that the dock further comprises a reservoir for containing water, and a cell arranged to create a disinfecting liquid from water, and the method further comprises the step of using the cell to create a disinfecting liquid from water prior to the applicator applying the disinfecting liquid to the reservoir for containing waste liquid. Longhenry discloses a method and apparatus for applying a disinfecting fluid to a floor cleaner (24), wherein the apparatus includes a reservoir (50/52) for containing water (paragraphs 33 & 34), and an applicator (22) for applying the disinfecting fluid to the floor cleaner (Abstract; Figures 1 & 2). The reference continues to disclose that the apparatus includes a cell (76) arranged to create a disinfecting liquid from water, and the method further comprises the step of using the cell (76) to create a disinfecting liquid from water, prior to the applicator applying the disinfecting liquid to the floor cleaner (paragraphs 32-38). The reservoir for containing water, cell and associated method steps are provided because such reservoir can store and condition said water (paragraphs 33 & 34), and said cell can use convenient and readily available components like water to create a disinfecting solution that successfully kills microbes and bacteria (paragraphs 3 and 23-28). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a reservoir for containing water, and a cell arranged to create a disinfecting liquid from water in the dock of Blumhardt, wherein the method uses the cell to create a disinfecting liquid from water, prior to the applicator applying the disinfecting liquid to the floor cleaner because such a cell can use convenient and readily available components like water to create a disinfecting solution that successfully kills microbes and bacteria as exemplified by Longhenry.
As such, claims 1, 10 & 11 are not patentable over Blumhardt in view of Longhenry.
Concerning claim 5, Blumhardt further discloses that the floor cleaner (14) comprises a passage (148) through which the waste liquid is arranged to pass, and the applicator (30) is arranged to further apply the disinfecting liquid to the passage (148) through which waste liquid is arranged to pass when the floor cleaner is received in the receiving unit (paragraphs 78 and 90-96).
Regarding claim 6, Blumhardt in view of Longhenry discloses that the disinfecting liquid is capable of comprising aqueous hydrogen peroxide (paragraph 66). Note that the disinfecting liquid is not positively recited.
With respect to claim 7, Blumhardt continues to disclose that the dock (12) further comprises a charging unit arranged to charge a battery of the floor cleaner (14) when received in the receiving unit (paragraph 79).
Concerning claim 8, Blumhardt further discloses that the dock (12) comprises a waste liquid reservoir (52) for receiving the waste liquid from the floor cleaner (14) when received in the receiving unit (paragraphs 62 & 91).
Regarding claim 9, Blumhardt when modified by Longhenry also discloses that the dock (12) of Blumhardt will further comprise a cleaning fluid reservoir (92/110 of Longhenry) for supplying cleaning fluid to the floor cleaner received in the receiving unit; as Longhenry discloses that said cleaning fluid reservoir in said dock is for storing said cleaning fluid prior to use (paragraphs 38 & 42-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dock of Blumhardt with a cleaning fluid reservoir for storing said cleaning fluid prior to use.
Thus, claim 9 is not patentable over Blumhardt in view of Longhenry as well.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Blumhardt in view of Longhenry continues to disclose that the cell is in fluid communication with, and positioned downstream of the reservoir (50/52 of Longhenry) and upstream of the applicator (30) in a fluid flow direction; as Longhenry discloses that said cell (76) is in fluid communication with, and positioned downstream of the reservoir and upstream of the applicator (22) as shown in Figures 1-3. Thus, one of ordinary skill modifying Blumhardt would place the cell downstream of the reservoir and upstream of the applicator as well in order to utilize a convenient and readily available source like water that creates a disinfecting solution that successfully kills microbes and bacteria as exemplified by Longhenry.
Therefore, these claims are not patentable over Blumhardt in view of Longhenry as well.
Regarding claims 14 & 16, Blumhardt when modified by Longhenry will create a configuration wherein the cell is arranged to create the disinfecting liquid from said water by the application of electricity and oxygen to the water (See paragraphs 36-39 of Longhenry).
Thus, these limitations are met by Blumhardt in view of Longhenry as well.
Claims 3 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumhardt et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0069748) in view of Longhenry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0001054) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Field et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0186954).
Concerning claim 3, Blumhardt in view of Longhenry is relied upon as set forth above. While Blumhardt discloses that the floor cleaner comprises a cleaning element (74/76), and the applicator is arranged to apply the disinfecting liquid to the cleaning element (74/76) when the floor cleaner (14) is received in the receiving unit (paragraphs 65, 66, 88 & 89); the reference does not appear to disclose that the cleaning element is a cleaning pad. Field discloses a method and apparatus for applying a disinfecting fluid to a floor cleaner (100), wherein the apparatus includes a reservoir (14) for containing water, an applicator (112) for applying a created disinfecting liquid to the floor cleaner, (Abstract; Figures 1, 2 and 10A), and a cell (5) arranged to create the disinfecting liquid from water (Figures 3-5) . The reference continues to disclose that the floor cleaner (100) comprises a cleaning pad, in which an applicator is arranged to apply the disinfecting liquid to the cleaning pad for cleaning purposes (paragraphs 187-190). Fields discloses that the cleaning pad is provided in order to appropriately utilize a cleaning element that will not damage soft surfaces (paragraph 188). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a cleaning pad as the cleaning element in Blumhardt in order to appropriately utilize a cleaning element that will not damage soft surfaces as exemplified by Field.
Thus, claim 3 is not patentable over Blumhardt in view of Longhenry and Field.
Regarding claim 15, Blumhardt does not appear to disclose that the disinfecting liquid is aqueous hydrogen peroxide. Nonetheless, Field continues to disclose that the disinfecting liquid is aqueous hydrogen peroxide because hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizer that can further boost the sanitizing properties of the water (paragraph 109). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize aqueous hydrogen peroxide as the disinfecting liquid produce by the cell of Blumhardt in view of Longhenry because hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizer that can further boost the sanitizing properties of water as exemplified by Field.
Therefore, claim 15 is not patentable over Blumhardt in view of Longhenry and Field as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights