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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed October 13, 2025 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 4 and 15 are cancelled by applicant. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 9-10, 12, 16-17, and 21. The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn due to newly submitted and accepted “Drawings” and “Specification” dated 10/13/2025. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The previous claim objection is withdrawn due to applicant’s cancelled claim. The previous 112 rejections regarding claim 12 is maintained. The previous 102/103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/18/2025 and 11/04/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“a suction apparatus” in claim 12, line 5;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a receiving unit for receiving the floor cleaner” in claim 1, line 3 and claim 12, line 2 and corresponding to the structural element 32 which receives the cleaning head 12 of the floor cleaner 10, and a support arm 34 against which the handle 16 of the floor cleaner 10 rests as described in page 4, ll. 20-23. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof of performing the claimed function;
“suction apparatus to actively suck liquid from the floor cleaner” in claim 12, line 4;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 16-21 are 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 limitation “suction apparatus to actively suck liquid from the floor cleaner” in claim 12, line 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of actively suck liquid from the floor cleaner is performed by the suction apparatus. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the actively sucking. The use of the term “suction apparatus” is not adequate structure for performing the actively suck liquid function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to actively suck liquid. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 13-14 and 16-21 depends on claim 12 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of the suction apparatus to actively suck liquid from the floor cleaner. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14 and 16-21 depends on claim 12 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-14, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel (DE 102019109298) in view of Mezeli (GB 2278047).
Regarding claim 1, Siegel discloses: a dock (Figures 1-9 element 88 and see also paragraphs 0162 and 0215) for receiving a floor cleaner (element 10), the dock comprising:
a receiving unit (element 91) for receiving the floor cleaner (see paragraphs 0217-0218),
a reservoir (element 104/106) for containing liquid (see paragraph 0228 where the prior art discloses element 106 of element 104 has “fresh water” (liquid)),
wherein the dock is arranged to feed liquid from the reservoir into the floor cleaner and receive the same liquid from the floor cleaner, the liquid having been flushed through the floor cleaner (See figure 1 showing element 104 (reservoir) having the liquid (fresh water) being pumped via element 108 to the connection (element 102 and see also paragraph 0230) which element 102 is utilized as “a means of which a fluid-effective connection” with element 10 (floor cleaner) which is fluidly connected to element 44 in order to supply fresh water to the tank (element 28) of the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0226), see also element 32 (line) connecting the tank (element 28) that has received the fresh water (liquid) being flushed through the floor cleaner via a line (element 32) toward element 34 and being fluidly connected to a tank device (element 20) of the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0212), and see also paragraph 0238 where the prior art discloses element 88 (dock) comprises element 120 that the fluid from element 20 (tank device) can be “discharged” (see paragraph 0238) via element 48 (see paragraph 0244). Therefore, the dock is arranged to feed liquid from the reservoir (via elements 102/108) into the floor cleaner (via element 44), receive the same liquid from the floor cleaner (via elements 48/120), and the liquid having been flushed through the floor cleaner (via elements 28/32/34/20).).
However, Siegel appears to be silent wherein the dock comprises an agitation unit and wherein the agitation unit is arranged to agitate the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner.
Mezeli is also concern in providing a station (Figures 1-3 and see also page 4, paragraph 0003) for receiving cleaners (element 31) comprising a reservoir (element 20) for containing a liquid (see page 4, paragraph 0004 where the prior art discloses element 20 containing a “cleaning fluid” (liquid) shown shaded diagonally as best shown in figure 1) and further comprising an agitation unit (element 21) and wherein the agitation unit is arranged to agitate the liquid (Per the claim interpretation above (pages 4-5), the agitation unit is interpreted to be “a pump that may be arranged to agitate the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner 10, for example by creating bubbles and/or ultrasonic vibrations within the liquid”, similarly the prior art discloses in page 3, paragraph 0005 where the prior art discloses “the agitation mean” is “an electrically powered air pump”, see also page 4, paragraph 0005 where the prior art discloses element 21 as “an electric air pump”, and see also page 1, paragraph 0004 where the prior art discloses utilizing the agitation means in order to pass “gas bubbles” through and agitates the cleaning liquid, thus the agitation unit is capable of being arranged to agitate the liquid, as recited.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Mezeli to provide an agitation unit and wherein the agitation unit is arranged to agitate the liquid. The resultant combination would have the agitation unit of Mezeli now arranged in the dock of Siegel which would necessarily agitate the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an agitation unit would necessarily provide the predictable result of agitating the cleaning liquid being fed to the floor cleaner in order for the agitated cleaning liquid to reach awkwardly accessible areas during operations, thus improving cleaning efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a waste liquid reservoir (element 122) for receiving the liquid flushed through the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0243).
Regarding claim 5, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 1, wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce bubbles into the liquid (As described above in the rejection of claim 1 (see page 12), the prior art of Mezeli discloses “the agitation mean” is “an electrically powered air pump” (see page 3, paragraph 0005), see also page 4, paragraph 0005 where the prior art discloses element 21 as “an electric air pump”, and see also page 1, paragraph 0004 where the prior art discloses utilizing the agitation means in order to pass “gas bubbles” through and agitates the cleaning liquid, thus the agitation unit is capable to introduce bubbles into the liquid, as recited.).
Regarding claim 9, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a charging unit (element 176), the charging unit arranged to charge a battery (element 84) of the floor cleaner received in the receiving unit (see figure 1 and see also paragraph 0286).
Regarding claim 10, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a cleaning fluid reservoir (element 170) for supplying cleaning fluid to the floor cleaner received in the receiving unit (see figure 1 and see also paragraphs 0281-0282).
Regarding claim 11, Siegel modified discloses: a method (Figures 1-9 element 88 and see also paragraphs 0162 and 0215) of cleaning a floor cleaner (element 10) comprising the steps of:
docking the floor cleaner with the dock as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection above of claim 1 (pages 13-15)) such that the floor cleaner is received in the receiving unit of the dock (see figure 1 and see also paragraphs 0217-0218),
feeding liquid from the reservoir for containing liquid into the floor cleaner (see figure 1 showing element 104 (reservoir) having the liquid (fresh water) being pumped via element 108 to the connection (element 102 and see also paragraph 0230) which element 102 is utilized as “a means of which a fluid-effective connection” with element 10 (floor cleaner) which is fluidly connected to element 44 in order to supply fresh water to the tank (element 28) of the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0226)),
extracting liquid from the floor cleaner, such that the liquid flushes through the floor cleaner (see figure 1 element 32 (line) connecting the tank (element 28) that has received the fresh water (liquid) being flushed through the floor cleaner via a line (element 32) toward element 34 and being fluidly connected to a tank device (element 20) of the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0212), and see also paragraph 0238 where the prior art discloses element 88 (dock) comprises element 120 that the fluid from element 20 (tank device) can be “discharged” (see paragraph 0238) via element 48 (see paragraph 0244)..
Regarding claim 12, Siegel discloses: a dock (Figures 1-9 element 88 and see also paragraphs 0162 and 0215) for receiving a floor cleaner (element 10), the dock comprising:
a receiving unit (element 91) for receiving the floor cleaner (see paragraphs 0217-0218),
a reservoir (element 104/106) for containing liquid (see paragraph 0228 where the prior art discloses element 106 of element 104 has “fresh water” (liquid)), and
suction apparatus (element 130) to actively suck liquid from the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0245);
wherein the dock is arranged to feed liquid from the reservoir into the floor cleaner and receive the same liquid from the floor cleaner, the liquid having been flushed through the floor cleaner (See figure 1 showing element 104 (reservoir) having the liquid (fresh water) being pumped via element 108 to the connection (element 102 and see also paragraph 0230) which element 102 is utilized as “a means of which a fluid-effective connection” with element 10 (floor cleaner) which is fluidly connected to element 44 in order to supply fresh water to the tank (element 28) of the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0226), see also element 32 (line) connecting the tank (element 28) that has received the fresh water (liquid) being flushed through the floor cleaner via a line (element 32) toward element 34 and being fluidly connected to a tank device (element 20) of the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0212), and see also paragraph 0238 where the prior art discloses element 88 (dock) comprises element 120 that the fluid from element 20 (tank device) can be “discharged” (see paragraph 0238) via element 48 (see paragraph 0244). Therefore, the dock is arranged to feed liquid from the reservoir (via elements 102/108) into the floor cleaner (via element 44), receive the same liquid from the floor cleaner (via elements 48/120), and the liquid having been flushed through the floor cleaner (via elements 28/32/34/20).).
However, Siegel appears to be silent wherein the dock comprises an agitation unit, the agitation unit is arranged to agitate the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner via an inlet.
Mezeli is also concern in providing a station (Figures 1-3 and see also page 4, paragraph 0003) for receiving cleaners (element 31) comprising a reservoir (element 20) for containing a liquid (see page 4, paragraph 0004 where the prior art discloses element 20 containing a “cleaning fluid” (liquid) shown shaded diagonally as best shown in figure 1) and further comprising an agitation unit (element 21), wherein the agitation unit is arranged to agitate the liquid (Per the claim interpretation above (pages 4-5), the agitation unit is interpreted to be “a pump that may be arranged to agitate the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner 10, for example by creating bubbles and/or ultrasonic vibrations within the liquid”, similarly the prior art discloses in page 3, paragraph 0005 where the prior art discloses “the agitation mean” is “an electrically powered air pump”, see also page 4, paragraph 0005 where the prior art discloses element 21 as “an electric air pump”, and see also page 1, paragraph 0004 where the prior art discloses utilizing the agitation means in order to pass “gas bubbles” through and agitates the cleaning liquid, thus the agitation unit is capable of being arranged to agitate the liquid, as recited.) being fed into the floor cleaner via an inlet (element 24/25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Mezeli to provide comprises an agitation unit, the agitation unit is arranged to agitate the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner via an inlet. The resultant combination would have the agitation unit of Mezeli now arranged in the dock of Siegel which would necessarily agitate the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an agitation unit would necessarily provide the predictable result of agitating the cleaning liquid being fed to the floor cleaner in order for the agitated cleaning liquid to reach awkwardly accessible areas during operations, thus improving cleaning efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 12, further comprising a suction nozzle (element 48) which connects to the floor cleaner in order to facilitate the passage of liquid out of the floor cleaner (see paragraphs 0243-0244).
Regarding claim 14, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 12, further comprising a waste liquid reservoir (element 122) for receiving the liquid flushed through the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0243).
Regarding claim 16, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 12, wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce bubbles into the liquid (As described above in the rejection of claim 12 (see pages 14-15), the prior art of Mezeli discloses “the agitation mean” is “an electrically powered air pump” (see page 3, paragraph 0005), see also page 4, paragraph 0005 where the prior art discloses element 21 as “an electric air pump”, and see also page 1, paragraph 0004 where the prior art discloses utilizing the agitation means in order to pass “gas bubbles” through and agitates the cleaning liquid, thus the agitation unit is capable to introduce bubbles into the liquid, as recited.).
Regarding claim 20, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 12, further comprising a charging unit (element 176), the charging unit arranged to charge a battery (element 84) of the floor cleaner received in the receiving unit (see figure 1 and see also paragraph 0286).
Regarding claim 21, Siegel modified discloses: the dock as claimed in claim 12, further comprising a cleaning fluid reservoir (element 170) for supplying cleaning fluid to the floor cleaner received in the receiving unit (see figure 1 and see also paragraphs 0281-0282).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel (DE 102019109298) in view of Mezeli (GB 2278047) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schonhoff (EP 3284383).
Regarding claim 2, Siegel modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses utilizing a plurality of different reservoirs (elements 104/106 and element 122) that are separate from each other in order to contain the liquid (see paragraph 0228 and paragraph 0243). However, Siegel modified appears to be silent wherein the dock is arranged such that the liquid flushed through the floor cleaner returns to the reservoir for containing liquid.
Schonhoff is also concern in providing a dock (Figures 3-4 element 11 and see also paragraph 0031-0032) for receiving a floor cleaner (element 1), the dock comprising a reservoir (element 12/16) for containing a liquid (element 31 and see also paragraph 0033 where the prior art discloses element 31 as “the liquid”), and wherein the dock is arranged such that the liquid flushed through the floor cleaner returns to the reservoir for containing liquid (see figure 4 showing the liquid (element 31) starting in the reservoir (element 16) and being fed via element 18 to the floor cleaner (element 1) into a tank (element 7) of the floor cleaner, additionally the liquid is transferred to another tank (element 3) of the floor cleaner with the liquid being sent back to the reservoir (element 12) via element 30 and with the same liquid (element 31) being recirculated between the reservoirs (elements 12/16) via element 34, thus the dock is arranged such that the liquid flushed through the floor cleaner returns to the reservoir for containing liquid, as recited.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Schonhoff to provide wherein the dock is arranged such that the liquid flushed through the floor cleaner returns to the reservoir for containing liquid. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the plurality of reservoirs arrange to recirculate the same liquid that has been flushed through the floor cleaner would necessarily decreases liquid usage by using the same liquid without requiring dumping and refilling during operations.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel (DE 102019109298) in view of Mezeli (GB 2278047) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Caitlin (US Patent No. 2,994,330).
Regarding claim 6, Siegel modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid.
Caitlin is also concern in providing a station (Figures 1-2 and see also col. 2, ll. 12-40) for receiving cleaners (elements 20/21), wherein the station comprises a reservoir (element 14) for containing a liquid (element 19 and see also col. 2, ll. 29-35), an agitation unit (element 82 and see also col. 4, ll. 42) and wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid (see col. 4, ll. 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Caitlin to provide wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the agitation unit producing ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid would necessarily provide the predictable result of agitating the cleaning liquid being fed to the floor cleaner in order for the agitated cleaning liquid to reach awkwardly accessible areas during operations, thus improving cleaning efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, Siegel modified discloses all the limitations of claims 12 and 15, but appears to be silent wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid.
Caitlin is also concern in providing a station (Figures 1-2 and see also col. 2, ll. 12-40) for receiving cleaners (elements 20/21), wherein the station comprises a reservoir (element 14) for containing a liquid (element 19 and see also col. 2, ll. 29-35), an agitation unit (element 82 and see also col. 4, ll. 42) and wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid (see col. 4, ll. 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Caitlin to provide wherein the agitation unit is arranged to introduce ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the agitation unit producing ultrasonic vibrations into the liquid would necessarily provide the predictable result of agitating the cleaning liquid being fed to the floor cleaner in order for the agitated cleaning liquid to reach awkwardly accessible areas during operations, thus improving cleaning efficiency.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel (DE 102019109298) in view of Mezeli (GB 2278047) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Vorwerk (DE 202016104067).
Regarding claim 7, Siegel modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the dock further comprising a heater, the heater arranged to heat the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner.
Vorwerk is also concern in providing a dock (Figure element 1 and see also paragraph 0025) for receiving a floor cleaner (element 2), the dock comprising a receiving unit (element 18) for receiving the floor cleaner (see figure 2), a reservoir (element
Schonhoff is also concern in providing a dock (Figure 4 element 11 and see also paragraph 0032) for receiving a floor cleaner (element 1), the dock comprising a receiving unit (element 18) for receiving the floor cleaner (see figure 4), a reservoir (element 3) for containing a liquid (see paragraph 0029 where the prior art discloses element 3 is used for “storing fresh liquid”), and further comprising a heater (element 8 and see also paragraph 0032 where the prior art discloses element 8 as “a heating device”), the heater arranged to heat the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0032-0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Schonhoff to provide a heater, the heater arranged to heat the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the heater heat the liquid would necessarily allow the dock to deliver warm liquid to the wet cleaning device in order for the wet cleaning device to use the warm liquid to clean a surface to be cleaned or to self-clean its Schonhoff (see paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 18, Siegel modified discloses all the limitations of claim 12, but appears to be silent wherein the dock further comprising a heater, the heater arranged to heat the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner.
Vorwerk is also concern in providing a dock (Figure element 1 and see also paragraph 0025) for receiving a floor cleaner (element 2), the dock comprising a receiving unit (element 18) for receiving the floor cleaner (see figure 2), a reservoir (element
Schonhoff is also concern in providing a dock (Figure 4 element 11 and see also paragraph 0032) for receiving a floor cleaner (element 1), the dock comprising a receiving unit (element 18) for receiving the floor cleaner (see figure 4), a reservoir (element 3) for containing a liquid (see paragraph 0029 where the prior art discloses element 3 is used for “storing fresh liquid”), and further comprising a heater (element 8 and see also paragraph 0032 where the prior art discloses element 8 as “a heating device”), the heater arranged to heat the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0032-0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Schonhoff to provide a heater, the heater arranged to heat the liquid being fed into the floor cleaner. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the heater heat the liquid would necessarily allow the dock to deliver warm liquid to the wet cleaning device in order for the wet cleaning device to use the warm liquid to clean a surface to be cleaned or to self-clean its Schonhoff (see paragraph 0012).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel (DE 102019109298) in view of Mezeli (GB 2278047) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Cloud (US Pub. No. 2017/0231457).
Regarding claim 8, Siegel modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the dock further comprising a filter, the filter arranged to filter liquid extracted from the floor cleaner.
Cloud is also concern in providing a station (element 100) for receiving a floor cleaner (see paragraph 0014) comprising a reservoir (element 101/102) for containing a liquid (see paragraphs 0036/0037) and further comprising a filter (elements 132/134/136/138), the filter arranged to filter liquid extracted from the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Cloud to provide a filter, the filter arranged to filter liquid extracted from the floor cleaner. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a filter would necessarily allow the user to remove any contaminates or debris from the used liquid, thus promoting cleanliness during operations.
Regarding claim 19, Siegel modified discloses all the limitations of claim 12, but appears to be silent wherein the dock further comprising a filter, the filter arranged to filter liquid extracted from the floor cleaner.
Cloud is also concern in providing a station (element 100) for receiving a floor cleaner (see paragraph 0014) comprising a reservoir (element 101/102) for containing a liquid (see paragraphs 0036/0037) and further comprising a filter (elements 132/134/136/138), the filter arranged to filter liquid extracted from the floor cleaner (see paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegel to incorporate the teachings of Cloud to provide a filter, the filter arranged to filter liquid extracted from the floor cleaner. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a filter would necessarily allow the user to remove any contaminates or debris from the used liquid, thus promoting cleanliness during operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the “Remarks”, the applicant disagrees that the "suction apparatus to actively suck liquid from the floor cleaner" of claim 12 should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The applicant asserts in the field of floor cleaners and docks for floor cleaners, a 'suction apparatus' (or similarly a 'suction device') is a well-known element, having sufficient structure, and is readily understood by those skilled in the art. For example, U.S. Patent No. 11,937,765 discloses a docking station including a "suction device" and U.S. Patent No. 12,090,650 discloses a cleaning robot including a "suction apparatus." As such, at least the '765 and '650 patents evidence that a 'suction apparatus' (or similarly a 'suction device') is well-known element having sufficient structure in this field.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in MPEP 2181(A), the claim limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function (i.e. apparatus), followed by functional language (i.e. to actively suck) with no additional structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The term, suction apparatus, does not necessarily provide sufficient structure for one of ordinary skilled in the art to determine what qualifies/constitutes or is needed as structure that performs the claimed function to actively suck liquid (is it a type of motor (electric or pneumatic motor, or etc.) or fan or path or etc. that performs the claimed function). Furthermore, the listed patent examples provide a variety of examples of what the suction apparatus/device can be (U.S. Patent No. 11,937,765 discloses that the suction device may include an intake flow path and suction fan (see col. 9, ll. 4-10) and U.S. Patent No. 12,090,650 discloses that the suction apparatus is a suction channel (see col. 56, ll. 15-17)) and does not explicitly disclose that all suction apparatus have the exact same structure. Therefore, the examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation of “suction apparatus” and the 112a/112b rejections since the specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function.
In response to applicant's argument that there one of ordinary skill in the art would not impart that agitation unit into Siegel's device as proposed, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, from the teaching of Mezeli showing that it is known in the art to have an agitation unit is arranged to agitate the liquid and provided outside of the tank, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Siegel in provide the predictable result of agitating the cleaning liquid being fed to the floor cleaner in order for the agitated cleaning liquid to reach awkwardly accessible areas during operations, thus improving cleaning efficiency. Therefore, arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723