DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/26/2023 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner cannot make a determination on what is special technical feature without establishing the features known to be in the prior art. This is not found persuasive. To establish lack of unity of invention, it is not necessary to determine a “special” technical feature, if using “a priori” analysis, i.e., before considering the claims in relation to any prior art. Before considering the prior art, it may be apparent that the claims lack unity of invention. For example, independent claims to A + X, A + Y, X + Y can be said to lack unity “a priori” as there is no subject matter common to all claims. MPEP 1850 II. In the instant case, Groups 1-4 clearly lack unity of invention since at least group 4 does not have any common subject matter with the other groups.
Furthermore, using “a posteriori” analysis, i.e., after considering prior art, all groups lack unity of invention since per the rejections below for claim 1 to Sclafani US 6,572,711, there is no “special technical feature” common to all groups.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2-7 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.
Regarding claims 2-7, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the first rotational axis ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sclafani US 6,572,711.
Re claim 1, Sclafani discloses a surface treatment tool comprising:
an elongate body [20, 14, 22] comprising a first end having a handle [top end of 20] with a handgrip portion and a second end distal the first end configured to be coupled a surface treatment head 28;
a fluid outlet [outlet of tube 56] configured to apply fluid to a surface 34 to be treated; and
a surface treatment head 28 configured to engage a surface to be treated and comprising a suction region E [Fig. 3] configured to suck fluid from a surface to be treated;
wherein the elongate body comprises:
a fluid tank 38 in fluid communication with the fluid outlet;
a waste tank 84 in fluid communication with the suction region and configured to collect fluid removed from a surface to be treated via the suction region; and
a power source 62 configured to supply power to the surface treatment tool;
a suction source 60 for sucking fluid and/or debris from the suction region to the waste tank.
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) 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclafani US 6,572,711 in view of Bian CN 112716394 A.
Re claim 2, Sclafani teaches the invention as discussed above for claim 1 but fail to teach wherein the elongate body comprises a spine defining a longitudinal axis extending between the first end and the second end of the elongate body, and wherein the fluid tank and/or the waste tank and/or the power source is coupled to the spine.
However, Bian teaches a surface treatment tool 100 comprising an elongate body 20 with a spine 22 defining a longitudinal axis extending between the first end 23 and the second end 21 of the elongate body, and wherein a fluid tank 31, a waste tank 41 and a power source 501 are coupled to the spine.
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the separate elongated body with a spine longitudinal axis couple to the tanks and power supply into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since no inventive effort would have been required, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results as evidenced by Bian, and every element would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bian with the surface treatment tool of Scalfani in order to yield the predictable result of a simple body with detachable cleaning and waste tank while reducing the manufacturing cost of the head [“the cleaning liquid tank and the sewage tank are detachably arranged on the machine body… a hard pipe connected with the dirty liquid box, the interface is arranged on the top of the hard pipe…through setting the shell moving to drive the cleaning surface to be cleaned of the scrubbing brush instead of the traditional technology driven by the motor of the rolling brush, and not in the base and the machine body is not provided with electric load, so that the cleaning head satisfies the wet cleaning operation, greatly reduces the manufacturing cost of the whole cleaning head”].
Re claim 3, Scalfani and Bian teach the invention as discussed above for claim 2, Bian further teaches wherein the fluid tank 31, and the waste tank 41 are shaped to wrap around at least a portion of the spine 22, wherein the power source 501 is located proximal the spine.
Re claim 4, Scalfani and Bian teach the invention as discussed above for claim 2, Bian further teaches wherein the fluid tank 31, and the waste tank 41 are coupled to the spine 22 such that the bulk of said two components is located at a first side [front] of the spine 22, wherein the first side [front] corresponds to a treatment direction when the surface treatment tool is in normal use.
Re claim 5, Scalfani and Bian teach the invention as discussed above for claim 2, Sclafani further teaches wherein the handgrip portion [top end of 20] is an elongate handle comprising a longitudinal axis which is substantially parallel to the longitudinal body of the elongate body 20, and wherein the longitudinal axis of the elongate handle is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the elongate body 20.
Re claim 6, Scalfani and Bian teach the invention as discussed above for claim 2, Bian further teaches wherein the spine comprises an interior profile configured to carry: a fluid supply path arranged to couple the fluid outlet with the fluid tank, a waste removal path arranged to couple the suction region to the waste tank and wherein the spine comprises an interior profile defining a volume forming to at least part of the fluid supply path, and a volume forming to at least part of the waste removal path [figs. 5-7].
Re claim 7, Scalfani teaches the invention as discussed above for claim 1, Sclafani further teaches wherein the elongate body is coupled to the surface treatment head via a coupling [seen in fig. 1], but fails to teach wherein the coupling comprises a joint arrangement comprising a first axis and a second axis perpendicular to the first rotational axis; wherein the first rotational axis intersects the second rotational axis; and wherein the coupling is offset from the longitudinal axis of the elongate body.
Bian teaches the elongate body 20 is coupled to the surface treatment head via a coupling 211, wherein the coupling comprises a joint arrangement comprising a first axis and a second axis perpendicular to the first rotational axis [see fig. 7]; wherein the first rotational axis intersects the second rotational axis; and wherein the coupling is offset from the longitudinal axis of the elongate body [fig. 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the joint arrangement of Bian with the tool of Scalfani in order to yield the predictable result of driving the machine body relative to the head between an inclined position and a vertical position.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclafani US 6,572,711 in view of Stackpole US 2006/0059639 A1.
Re claim 8, Scalfani teaches the invention as discussed above for claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a rear edge- the surface treatment head with respect to a treatment direction of the surface treatment tool comprises a first end, a second end and a middle portion located between the first and second ends, wherein the middle portion of the rear edge projects rearward of the first and second ends with respect to a treatment direction of the surface treatment head; where wherein the surface treatment head comprises at least a portion comprising a curved shaped profile in plan view; and/or wherein the surface treatment head comprises at least a portion comprising a substantially V- shaped profile in plan view; and wherein the surface treatment head comprises a front edge with respect to the treatment direction, and wherein at least one of the front edge and the rear edge are at least partially curved or V-shaped.
However, Stackpole teaches a surface treatment tool 10 [figs. 2-6] comprising a rear edge of the surface treatment head 40 with respect to a treatment direction of the surface treatment tool comprises a first end 2120, a second end 3120 and a middle portion 120 [fig. 6A] located between the first and second ends, wherein the middle portion of the rear edge projects rearward of the first and second ends with respect to a treatment direction of the surface treatment head; wherein the surface treatment head comprises at least a portion comprising a curved shaped profile in plan view [fig. 7] and wherein the surface treatment head comprises at least a portion comprising a substantially V- shaped profile in plan view [fig. 7]; and wherein the surface treatment head comprises a front edge with respect to the treatment direction, and wherein at least one of the front edge and the rear edge are at least partially curved or V-shaped [fig. 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the surface treatment head geometry of Stackpole with the surface treatment tool of Scalfani in order to yield the predictable result of conforming with curved surfaces.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights