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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (WO 2022253345 A1) in view of Zheng (WO 2020224542 A1).
See Non-Final office action for the detailed rejection which is upheld herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claims 14, 16-17, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8-11 that neither Ma nor Zheng does not disclose "a base body comprising an engaging assembly, wherein the engaging assembly is movable" recited by claim 11. Applicant argues that Ma uses the dismantling mechanism to separate the mop by hooking and pulling it away. Then, Ma then uses the first moving mechanism to move the mop plate, so that the mop is attached to the mop plate by paste. However, according to paragraph [0015] of the present application, in the present application, the engaging assembly engages the snap ring, so that the wiping head moves up and down to remove the used cloth and replace it with a new cloth. In view of the foregoing, the embodiment of claim 11 uses a structure for replacing the wiping cloth that is fundamentally different from that of Ma. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at the engaging assembly of the embodiment of claim 11 based on the teachings of Ma in view of Zheng. -In response, it is noted that Applicant is relying significantly on the instant specification description of the apparatus which have specific features that are not recited in the current claims. The limitation in the claims merely require “a base body comprising an engaging assembly, wherein the engaging assembly is movable”. Therefore, the arguments regarding structure for replacing the wiping cloth being fundamentally different from that of Ma is irrelevant in terms of the rejection since the specifics argued by Applicant are not even in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structure for replacing the wiping cloth being fundamentally different) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The rejection is upheld since the references disclose the claimed limitations.
Applicant only argued the rejection of claim 11 and Examiner upholds the rejections of claims 12-13, 15, 18 as well.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights