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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the term “biasing member” should not be read under 112f. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation in question reads “' wherein the pan includes a push and release system including a protuberance formed on the yoke, a biasing member formed on the protuberance and an opening formed in the receptacle, the push and release system configured to selectively lock the dustpan in the first position or release the dustpan into the second position; wherein to transition the dustpan from the first position to the second position, the biasing member and the protuberance are configured to receive pressure to allow movement of the protuberance and biasing member through the opening”. The term “biasing member” has a nonce term. The functional limitation “wherein to transition the dustpan from the first position to the second position, the biasing member and the protuberance are configured to receive pressure to allow movement of the protuberance and biasing member through the opening” does not contain any structure that is capable of doing the recited function. Thus the phrase is interpreted under 112f. If Applicant does not want the limitations read under 112f, the Examiner suggests changing the “biasing member” to a spring or the desired biasing member type. Please review MPEP 2181 for further details.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is not disclosed by Liu in view of Alt. Applicant fails to give substantiative remarks explaining why claim 1 is not met by Liu in view of Alt. As shown below, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues claim 13 is not disclosed by Alt. The Examiner agrees with applicant. Thus the previous rejections are withdrawn and new rejections are made herein and made final.
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 button, discussed in claim 22 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.
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:
“biasing member” in claim 1.
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.
When looking to the specification, a biasing member is defined as being any spring system known, including integrally molded to the protuberance (Paragraph 55 of instant application). As such this is the required structure of the claim, or equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Gregory (US 2019/0150698).
Regarding claim 13, Gregory discloses a dustpan comprising:
a handle assembly (Item 160); and a
pan coupled to the handle assembly, the pan having a receptacle (Item 110) and a yoke (Item 150), the receptacle rotatable from a first position to a second position with respect to the yoke , the receptacle having an open end, a closed end (best shown in Figure 7), an upper wall (Figure 13), a lower wall, and a pair of sidewalls ((best shown in Figure 6) cooperating together to form an interior, the upper wall including a first portion and a second portion, wherein an inner height of the receptacle at the first portion of the upper wall is less an inner height of the receptacle at the second portion of the upper wall.
wherein an opening is formed in the upper wall intermediate the first portion and the second portion (Figure 13 shows an embodiment with a latch that protrudes through the upper wall between a change in overall height of the receptacle, Figure 15 gives another view that speaks to the claim)
PNG
media_image1.png
304
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Gregory discloses the dustpan of Claim 13, wherein an outer height of the receptacle at the first portion of the upper wall is less than an outer height of the receptacle at the second portion of the upper wall (figure 15).
Regarding claim 18, Gregory discloses the dustpan of Claim 13, wherein the receptacle includes a retaining mouth formed at the open end thereof, the retaining mouth including a step portion integrally formed with the lower wall of the receptacle (Item 196 Figure 13).
Regarding claim 23, Gregory discloses the dustpan of Claim 13, wherein the yoke includes a protuberance, the protuberance received through the opening when receptacle is in the first position (Figure 16).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US D919916S) in view of Alt (US 6,282,745).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a dustpan comprising:
a handle assembly (Annotated Figure 10 Item A, better shown in Figure 11); and
a pan (Figure 1) coupled to the handle assembly, the pan having a receptacle (Item B) and a yoke (Item C), the receptacle rotatable from a first position (Figure 1) to a second position (Figure 10) with respect to the yoke, the yoke having a plurality of teeth (Item D) formed thereon.
Liu fails to explicitly disclose configured for engaging an inner surface of the receptacle to militate against over-rotation of the receptacle (Figure 10 shows the yoke and teeth in a second position, in order to be held in this position, the teeth would need to be in contact with the bottom wall). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the teeth such that the teeth contacted the bottom wall of the receptacle. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Allowing the teeth to contact the bottom surface would allow for two things. First, it would allow for the handle to allow for space for the user to fit their hand around when in the second position. Secondly, by limiting the rotation, it would limit the stresses on the joint between the sidewall and the yoke, thus allowing for the tool to last longer.
Liu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pan includes a push and release system including a protuberance formed on the yoke, a biasing member formed on the protuberance and an opening formed in the receptacle, the push and release system configured to selectively lock the dustpan in the first position or release the dustpan into the second position; wherein to transition the dustpan from the first position to the second position, the biasing member and the protuberance are configured to receive pressure to allow movement of the protuberance and biasing member through the opening
Alt teaches a dustpan wherein the pan includes a push and release system including a protuberance (Item 46) formed on the yoke, a biasing member formed on the protuberance and an opening formed in the receptacle, the push and release system configured to selectively lock the dustpan in the first position or release the dustpan into the second position; wherein to transition the dustpan from the first position to the second position, the biasing member and the protuberance are configured to receive pressure to allow movement of the protuberance and biasing member through the opening (Column 2 Lines 29-65; deforming the yoke is considered a biasing system based on the 112f interpretation).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 10
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1, wherein the handle assembly includes a grip assembly (Item E) and a shaft (Item F) , the grip assembly formed from a first portion and a second portion coupled together.
PNG
media_image4.png
780
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1, wherein the yoke is disposed entirely within the receptacle (best shown in Figure 1 of Liu).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the yoke is flush with an inner surface of the receptacle in the first position (Liu; Figure 8 shows how the transition from the handle to the yoke member is flush to the cutout of the receptacle).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of teeth engage an inner surface of the receptacle in the second position (discussed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1, wherein the receptacle includes a retaining feature formed in the receptacle, the retaining feature configured to prevent fluid from exiting the receptacle.
PNG
media_image5.png
484
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 9, wherein the receptacle includes an open end and a retaining mouth formed at the open end of the receptacle, the retaining mouth including a step portion and a lip portion coupled to the step portion (Annotated Figure 7).
Regarding claim 21, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1, wherein the biasing member is configured to become substantially planar with an outer surface of the protuberance when pressure is applied to the biasing member (as shown in Annotated Figure 2, the molded projection/biasing member extends from the yoke to the outer surface of the protuberance. When force is applied to the protuberance, the biasing member moves).
Regarding claim 22, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1, wherein the biasing member is configured as a button that biases outwardly from an outer surface of the protuberance (as shown in Annotated Figure 2, the molded projection/biasing member extends from the yoke to the outer surface of the protuberance).
PNG
media_image6.png
434
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 - Alt
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US D919916S) in view of Gregory (US 2019/0150698)
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1. Liu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dustpan includes a pair of wheels.
Gregory teaches a dustpan wherein the dustpan includes a pair of wheels (Item 180). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the wheels as taught by Gregory. Wheels are known in the art for moving objects by reducing the force required. In this instance it would take les force on the users part to roll the dustpan across the floor than to lift or slide the dustpan. Also, the wheels would prevent the user from scratching the floor by providing means to not drag the dustpan cross the floor.
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Alt disclose the dustpan of Claim 1. Liu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dustpan includes a closed end and a torque assisting portion recessed in an outer surface of the closed end.
Gregory teaches a dustpan wherein the dustpan includes a closed end and a torque assisting portion (Item 184) recessed in an outer surface of the closed end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the torque assisting portion as taught by Gregory. Such a modification would allow a user to use their hand to help guide the receptacle when emptying the dustpan (Gregory (Paragraph 62).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory (US 2019/0150698) in view of Liu (US D919916S)
Regarding claim 15, Gregory discloses the dustpan of Claim 13. Gregory fails to explicitly disclose wherein the yoke is flush with an inner surface of the receptacle in the first position.
Liu discloses a dustpan wherein the yoke is flush with an inner surface of the receptacle in the first position (Figure 8 shows how the transition from the handle to the yoke member is flush to the cutout of the receptacle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the receptacle such that the receptacle encompasses at least some of the yoke as taught by Liu. Such a modification wis viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). By encompassing part of the yoke, the yoke is held in position better and prevents unwanted movement. This would lead to less stress at the joint of the yoke and the sidewalls, which leads to a longer life of the cleaning tool.
Regarding claim 16, Gregory in view of Liu disclose the dustpan of Claim . Gregory fails to explicitly disclose wherein the yoke includes a plurality of teeth, and the plurality of teeth engaging the inner surface of the receptacle in the second position.
Liu further teaches wherein the plurality of teeth engaging the inner surface of the receptacle in the second position. (Figure 1 shows the teeth, and Figure 10 shows the yoke and teeth in a second position, in order to be held in this position, the teeth would need to be in contact with the bottom wall). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gregory to include the teeth and the length of the teeth such that the teeth contacted the bottom wall of the receptacle. Teeth are known in the art to give a surface to clean the broom of hair and other debris that would become entangled upon the broom bristles. Allowing the teeth to contact the bottom surface would allow for two things. First, it would allow for the handle to allow for space for the user to fit their hand around when in the second position. Secondly, by limiting the rotation, it would limit the stresses on the joint between the sidewall and the yoke, thus allowing for the tool to last longer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory (US 2019/0150698) in view of Morad (US 7,509,705).
Regarding claim 17, Alt discloses the dustpan of Claim 13. Gregory fails to explicitly disclose wherein a retaining feature is formed in at least one of the sidewalls of the receptacle, the retaining feature is a recess formed in an inner surface of the at least one of the sidewalls.
Morad teaches a dustpan wherein a retaining feature is formed in at least one of the sidewalls of the receptacle, the retaining feature is a recess formed in an inner surface of the at least one of the sidewalls (Item 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receptacle of Gregory to incorporate the retaining feature of Morad. Such a modification would allow the dust pans to interlock with each other for stacking and display purposes (Morad Column 1 Lines 13-37).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory (US 2019/0150698) in view of Ward (US 2012/0260453).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, Alt discloses the dustpan of Claim 18, wherein a lip portion is coupled to step portion (Item 118), the lip portion including a seal (Gregory Item 146, Paragraph 50). Gregory fails to explicitly disclose the lip portion including a fastener and a seal, the fastener coupling the seal to the step portion.
Ward teaches a dustpan wherein a lip portion (Item 1121) is coupled to step portion (Item 1120), the lip portion including a fastener (Paragraph 34) and a seal (Item 1300; paragraph 49), the fastener coupling the seal to the step portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gregory to include the rubber lip attached by a fastener, as taught by Ward. Ward further discusses the use of adhesive or mechanical fasterners to attach the differeing materials to each other. Both methods are known in the art, that lead to the predictable result of the lip seal being securely held to the dustpan. Mechanical fasteners have the advantage that some fasteners can be removed to do maintenance then reinstalled. This would be beneficial if a user ever wanted to replace the seal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723