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
Claim 8, 16-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn as directed towards a non-elected species, specifically, the disclosure provides that this applies to the embodiment of figs 13-14, which is not elected (see specifically page 48 lines 14 - page 50 line 2, more particularly, page 49 line 21 - page 50 line 2 of the instant spec).
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0172189 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 02/25/2022, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP §608.01(p) I B: “For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date”;
MPEP 1893.03(b): “An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office”, and
MPEP 714.01(e): “A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11.” as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - “...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
The specification amendment filed 08/25/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0172189.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or 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;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“cleaning module” in claim 1, 2, 3, 7, corresponding to cleaning module 300
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.
Cleaning module in claims 12-14 is recited with sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/879,560 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference application recites the limitations recited in the instant claim 1 as indicated below.
Instant Claims
Reference Claims
1. A cleaner comprising:
a cleaner main body comprising a battery and a handle configured to be grasped by a user;
a cleaning module detachably coupled to the cleaner main body and configured to eliminate debris on a floor surface; an auxiliary battery housing detachably coupled to the cleaning module;
and an auxiliary battery detachably coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and configured to supply power to the cleaner main body or the cleaning module.
1. A cleaner comprising:
a cleaner body including a battery and a handle gripped by a user;
a cleaning module which is detachably coupled to the cleaner body and removes foreign substances on a floor surface;
an auxiliary battery housing which is detachably coupled to the cleaning module; and an auxiliary battery which is detachably coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and supplies power to the cleaner body or the cleaning module, wherein the auxiliary battery housing comprises:
an auxiliary battery receiver in which an auxiliary battery receiving groove into which the auxiliary battery is inserted is formed;
a stopper which is provided in the auxiliary battery receiver in such a manner as to be able to perform a linear reciprocating motion and prevents the auxiliary battery receiver
from being separated when coupled to the cleaning module; and
a release button which is provided in the auxiliary battery receiver in such a manner as to be able to perform a linear reciprocating motion and moves the stopper when an external force is applied.
As for the specific differences between a main body (instant claim), and a body (reference claim), that difference amounts to a difference in what a body is named, and does not result in a non-obvious structural difference. As for a difference between eliminating debris (instant claim) and removing foreign substances (reference claim), a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have understood that debris on a floor and foreign substances on a floor have analogous meanings, resulting in an obvious difference.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A).
With respect to claim 1, Tanaka discloses: A cleaner comprising:
a cleaner main body (12, fig. 1; [0014]) comprising a battery (25, fig. 1; [0015]) and a handle configured to be grasped by a user (22, fig. 1; [0015]);
a cleaning module detachably coupled to the cleaner main body and configured to eliminate debris on a floor surface (cleaning module as the portion enclosed within suction tool body 56, fig. 5, [0057-0058] with a brush within; 112(f) equivalent as a floor cleaning head);
an auxiliary battery housing detachably coupled to the cleaning module (58, fig. 5; [0025], which can be disconnected from suction tool body 56, an be unlocked from portion 163, fig. 5 of the cleaning module as in [0060]); and
an auxiliary battery detachably coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and configured to supply power to the cleaner main body or the cleaning module (replaceable [detachable] battery 77, fig. 5; [0028;0064], supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]).
With respect to claim 2, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: an extension tube configured to connect the cleaning module and the cleaner main body (extension tube 14, fig. 1; [0020], connects [directly or indirectly] cleaning module and cleaner main body as shown in fig. 1), wherein the auxiliary battery housing is disposed between [at least a portion of] the extension tube and [at least a portion of] the cleaning module (see position of housing 58 relative to cleaning module 56 and main body 12, a detailed view of the connection is shown in fig. 4; instant figs. 4 and 12 shows the battery housing 400 sleeved on a part of the cleaning module, thus “between” is understood as between at least a portion of the extension tube and/or the cleaning module- see placement of instant support element 385, part of instant extension tube 382 of the instant cleaning module in fig. 12 fitting into instant main body 421 of the coupling part 420 of the instant auxiliary battery housing).
With respect to claim 5, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses: wherein the auxiliary battery is inclined downward and inserted into and coupled to the auxiliary battery housing (auxiliary battery 77, fig. 4 is inclined downwards and inserted in housing 58, fig. 4 in the angled position shown in fig. 4).
With respect to claim 6, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 5 above, and further discloses: wherein a direction in which the auxiliary battery is inserted has an angle of 0 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees with respect to a longitudinal direction of the extension tube (battery 77, fig. 4 is shown parallel [0 deg] with respect to a longitudinal direction of the extension tube 14, fig. 4, further description in [0028], referring to fig. 6).
With respect to claim 7, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the cleaning module comprises a connection tube to which the extension tube and the auxiliary battery housing are coupled (connection tube 134, fig. 5 of the cleaning module terminates at a spigot 163, fig .5; [0053], which is coupled to auxiliary battery housing at 60, fig. 4, [0042,0053]), and wherein an upper end of the auxiliary battery is disposed to be farther from the floor surface than is an upper end of the connection tube in a state in which the auxiliary battery is coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and the auxiliary battery housing is coupled to the connection tube (see detail of fig. 4 where auxiliary batteries 77 are positioned above the spigot 163 of the connection tube).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) and further in view of Horst (GB 2550041 A).
With respect to claim 3, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein in a state in which the auxiliary battery is coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and the extension tube and the cleaning module are coupled (see the detailed view in fig. 4, and the fully assembled view in figs. 1-2), the auxiliary battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are coupled with each other (the extension tube 14 terminates in a receiving portion 48, fig. 5 [0036] and a connection tube 134, fig. 5 of the cleaning module terminates at a spigot 163, fig .5; [0053], and both couple at a portion 60, figs. 2, 4; [0042,0053], and the battery at 77, fig. 4 is further above the floor in that position, relative to the up/down direction of the figure consistent with the orientation of the reference characters in the figure [for clarity, this orientation would be the publication paper rotated clockwise 90 degrees). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose that the auxiliary battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are in contact with each other.
Horst, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of an arrangement where a battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are in contact with each other (battery 10, fig. 1; is above the point of connection of an extension tube 5 [portion 5b], fig. 1, and the point of the cleaning module at 12 where the extension tube is swivel mounted into the cleaning module [floor part 1]; page 7 lines 27-39; the energy storage is described on page 8 lines 8-15). Horst describes this arrangement as making it easier to handle the cleaner with the placement of mass away from the floor surface (page 3 lines 2-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka such that a battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are in contact with each other, as taught by Horst, to make it easier to handle the cleaner, with the placement of mass away from the floor surface. This placement would result the battery housing positioned between the cleaning module, and a portion of the extension tube consistent with instant figs. 4 and 12 shows the battery housing 400 sleeved on a part of the cleaning module, thus “between” is understood as between at least a portion of the extension tube and/or the cleaning module (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) and further in view of Brown (US 20170196429 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the auxiliary battery is connected in series to the battery. Tanaka discloses that the battery provides power to the main body (battery 15 provide power to the fan motor 27, [0015-0016], within housing 20 of main body 12), and the auxiliary battery provides power to the cleaning head (battery 77 supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]).
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a battery within an analogous main body (main body 100, fig. 1; [0510]) and another battery [auxiliary battery] within a cleaning tool (cleaning tool/module 154, fig. 1; [0510]), and arranging the battery in a selectable series and parallel configuration ([0510-0511]). Brown teaches that this arrangement allows for selectively having longer run times and higher suction levels compared to using only a single battery in the vacuum, as an alternative to having the batteries electrically isolated from each other ([0510-0511]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, such that the auxiliary battery is [selectively] connected in series to the battery, as taught by Brown, for the purpose of allowing the user to select a longer run time or higher power arrangement.
With respect to claim 10, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the auxiliary battery is connected in parallel to the battery. Tanaka discloses that the battery provides power to the main body (battery 15 provide power to the fan motor 27, [0015-0016], within housing 20 of main body 12), and the auxiliary battery provides power to the cleaning head (battery 77 supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]).
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a battery within an analogous main body (main body 100, fig. 1; [0510]) and another battery [auxiliary battery] within a cleaning tool (cleaning tool/module 154, fig. 1; [0510]), and arranging the battery in a selectable series and parallel configuration ([0510-0511]). Brown teaches that this arrangement allows for selectively having longer run times and higher suction levels compared to using only a single battery in the vacuum, as an alternative to having the batteries electrically isolated from each other ([0510-0511]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, such that the auxiliary battery is [selectively] connected in parallel to the battery, as taught by Brown, for the purpose of allowing the user to select a longer run time or higher power arrangement.
With respect to claim 11, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the auxiliary battery is connected selectively in series or in parallel to the battery. Tanaka discloses that the battery provides power to the main body (battery 15 provide power to the fan motor 27, [0015-0016], within housing 20 of main body 12), and the auxiliary battery provides power to the cleaning head (battery 77 supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]).
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a battery within an analogous main body (main body 100, fig. 1; [0510]) and another battery [auxiliary battery] within a cleaning tool (cleaning tool/module 154, fig. 1; [0510]), and arranging the battery in a selectable series and parallel configuration ([0510-0511]). Brown teaches that this arrangement allows for selectively having longer run times and higher suction levels compared to using only a single battery in the vacuum, as an alternative to having the batteries electrically isolated from each other ([0510-0511]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, such the auxiliary battery is connected selectively in series or in parallel to the battery, as taught by Brown, for the purpose of allowing the user to select a longer run time or higher power arrangement.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) and further in view of Ko (KR 200148059 Y1).
With respect to claim 12, Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the cleaning module comprises: at least one mop configured to wipe the floor surface; and a mop driving motor configured to provide a rotational force to the mop.
Ko, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a combined steam vacuum cleaner (abstract), where the cleaning module (shown overall in fig. 3; page 2 lines 32-37) comprises: at least one mop configured to wipe the floor surface (mops as clean means 50 fig. 3, page 3 lines 13-17, that rotate using rotary means 40 to clean a bottom of the floor) and a mop driving motor configured to provide a rotational force to the mop (motor as drive means 16, receives power to rotate, page 3 lines 8-12). Ko teaches that this arrangement helps keep the floor more clean over conventional vacuum cleaners (page 2 lines 8-24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the mop and mop motor of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) in view of Ko (KR 200148059 Y1), and further in view of Nuttall (US 20140259515 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Tanaka, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning module comprises: a water tank configured to store water; and a diffuser configured to discharge moisture, which is supplied from the water tank, to the mop.
Ko further teaches of wherein the cleaning module comprises: a water tank configured to store water (water tank 21, fig. 3; page 2 last 4 lines - page 4 line 6); and a diffuser configured to discharge moisture, which is supplied from the water tank, to the mop (diffuser as nozzle 30, fig. 3, page 3 lines 6-15). Ko teaches that this arrangement helps keep the floor more clean over conventional vacuum cleaners (page 2 lines 8-24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the mop and mop motor of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
Specifically regarding the nozzle being a diffuser in Ko, Nuttall, in the same field of endeavor, provides evidence that the conical nozzle is a diffuser (308, fig. 3, [0035]). Alternatively, Nuttall teaches that diffusing nozzles help distribute the steam on the floor (308, fig. 3, [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka (including the nozzle of Ko), with the diffuser of Nuttall, for the purpose of spreading the steam further out.
With respect to claim 14, Tanaka, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning module further comprises a steam generator configured to heat water introduced from the water tank and supply the heated water to the diffuser.
Ko further teaches of wherein the cleaning module comprises: comprises a steam generator configured to generate steam using water introduced from the water tank and supply the steam to the diffuser (steam generator 20, fig. 3; page 2 last 4 lines - page 4 line 6; generates steam through ultrasonic waves). Ko teaches that this arrangement helps keep the floor more clean over conventional vacuum cleaners (page 2 lines 8-24). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the mop and mop motor of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the steam generator of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
Regarding the steam cleaner being configured to heat water introduced from the water tank and supply the heated water to the diffuser, as noted above, Ko provides that the steam is generated by ultrasonic waves. Nuttall further teaches that steam can be generated by heat ([0006-0007]), and that batteries can supply the energy needed to generate stream ([0022]). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one element for another to obtain predicable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the ultrasonic wave stream generator taught by Ko, and incorporated into Tanaka, for the heater taught by Nuttall, to obtain a predictable result of generating steam by heating, which further results in the steam cleaner being configured to heat water introduced from the water tank and supply the heated water to the diffuser.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) in view of Ko (KR 200148059 Y1), and Nuttall (US 20140259515 A1), and further in view of Chung (US 20070130718 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Tanaka, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the auxiliary battery supplies power to the steam generator. Tanaka, however discloses that the auxiliary battery provides power to the cleaning module (Tanaka, battery 77 supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]; it is further noted above in the rejections of claims 13-14, that Tanaka, as modified by Ko and Nuttall provides for a steam generator as part of the cleaning module, additionally as noted in the rejection of claim 14 above, Nuttall at [0022] teaches that steam generators that operate by heating can be battery powered).
Chung, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, provides for a battery placed proximate to the cleaning module (battery 22, fig. 3; [0038], is analogously placed like the battery 77 of Tanaka on an extension 1, fig. 2 of the cleaning head; [0034]). Chung teaches that the battery powers the steam generator ([0051-0052], referring to steam generator 14, fig. 2) and that corded cleaners have issues with range due to limits with the power cable length ([0008-0009]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka such that the auxiliary battery supplies power to the steam generator, using the teachings of Chung, to increase the range of the cleaner away from a power outlet. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have powered the steam generator from the auxiliary battery in Tanaka, given that the auxiliary battery, located proximate to the cleaning module, supplies power to the cleaning module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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 Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723