The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received October 3, 2025, amending Claims 1-4, 8, 12-15, and 19. Claims 9 and 11 were canceled. New Claim 21 was added.
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pipe cleaning machine” in Claims 4, 5, 15, 16, “support member(s)” in Claims 2-4, 8, and 13-15, “first support member” in Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16, “second support member” in Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16, “pipe cleaning device” in Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18, “support mechanism” in Claim 19, and “transmission mechanism” in Claims 19 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 3, 6, 7, 14, 17, and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 recite the limitation "the pipe cleaning device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a pipe cleaning device has not been previously claimed.
Claims 3 and 14 recite the limitation " wherein each of the plurality of support members comprises a connection shaft ". The scope of these claims is unclear since it requires a connection shaft for each of the support members, implying that there are multiple connection shafts. The Applicant’s disclosure does not include multiple connection shafts and therefore it is unclear how to interpret the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will assume that the interpretation is “wherein at least one of the plurality of support members comprises a connection shaft” which is consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. US 2020/0217060 (hereafter Miller et al.) in view of Milwaukee 2772A-20 Drain Snake Webpage and Operator's Manual – dated 06/2017 (hereafter Milwaukee).
Regarding Claim 1, Miller et al. teaches:
1. (Currently Amended) A pipe cleaning machine (drain cleaner 20), comprising:
a handle (grip 52 of handle assembly 24) for holding;
a drum (drum 32) connected to the handle (through shaft of drive mechanism 48) and rotatable with respect to the handle;
a cable disposed in the drum (flexible cable 50);
an electric motor (motor 44) driving the cable to rotate and comprising, a rotor, a stator, (see discussion below) and an electric motor shaft driven by the rotor and extending along a first axis (centerline of connection shaft rotation as shown in attached Figure 3 below);
an electric motor housing (portion of handle assembly surrounding motor 44 and drive mechanism 48 shown in Figure 4) connected to the handle (integrally connected) and surrounding the electric motor (shown in attached Figure 3 below); and
a cable feeding assembly (feed control mechanisms 92) for supporting and feeding the cable (Paragraph [0040]);
wherein the drum is formed with a mounting cavity (labeled in attached Figure 3 below), and at least part of the electric motor housing and at least a part of the rotor and the stator of the motor is disposed in the mounting cavity (see discussion below).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller et al. discloses a drain cleaner device for Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation. Miller et al. discloses a motor 44, however, he doesn’t disclose the type of motor employed in the device. The reference Milwaukee discloses a commercially available prior art drain cleaner device. Visually comparing the devices, they appear to be a very similar construction. Milwaukee discloses the dimensions of the device and discloses that the motor employed in the device is a brushless motor. Therefore, the motor inherently comprises a rotor and a stator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Miller et al. device be modified, if necessary, to employ a brushless motor comprising a rotor and stator as taught by Milwaukee since they are essentially the same device with a similar prior art date with the motivation for the motor to be capable of performing the intended operation. That being said, Miller discloses the location of the motor in Figure 3 where at least the majority of the motor is located within the labeled mounting cavity. Miller does not specifically show features that can be clearly identified as a rotor or stator, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the disclosed drawn structure outside the mounting cavity shown in attached Figure 3 above appears less likely to include the rotor or stator than the drawn structure inside the mounting cavity. Therefore, it would have been obvious that at least part of the stator or rotor are located within the mounting cavity as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Miller et al. teaches:
2. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of support members (connecting flange and mounting hole of drum 32, first support member, and assembly comprising drive mechanism housing, bearings, and connection shaft as labeled in attached Figure 3 above) disposed in the mounting cavity (shown in attached Figure 3 above) and disposed in a circumferential direction of the electric motor housing (shown in attached Figure 3 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Miller et al. teaches:
3. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of support members comprises a connection shaft (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) and a support bearing (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) sleeved on the connection shaft (shown in attached Figure 3 above), the support bearing is rotatable about the connection shaft, and the support bearing is in direct or indirect contact (indirect contact through connection shaft as shown in attached Figure 3 above) with an inner wall of the drum (mounting hole of flange labeled in attached Figure 3 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Miller et al. teaches:
4. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 1, further comprising support members comprising a first support member (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) and a second support member (labeled in attached Figure 3 above), wherein the first support member is disposed at a rear end of the drum (shown in attached Figure 3 above), the second support member is disposed in the handle or the electric motor housing (labeled in attached Figure 3 above – part of electric motor housing), and the first support member and the second support member are rotatable with respect to each other (labeled first support member rotates with drum 32 relative to cited second support member).
Regarding Claim 6, Miller et al. teaches:
6. (Original) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 1, wherein the pipe cleaning device (drain cleaner 20 – assumed to be pipe cleaning machine) further comprises a support seat (stand 64) disposed below the drum (drum 32)(shown in Figure 2), and a downward projection of a center of gravity of the pipe cleaning machine is in a region where a downward projection of the support seat and a downward projection of the drum overlap each other (stand 64 is positioned beneath a center of gravity of the drain cleaner 20, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 7, Miller et al. teaches:
7. (Original) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 1, wherein a downward projection of a center of gravity of the pipe cleaning device (drain cleaner 20 – assumed to be pipe cleaning machine) is on a rear middle portion of a downward projection of the drum (shown in Figure 2, stand 64 is positioned beneath a center of gravity of the drain cleaner 20, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 8, Miller et al. teaches:
8. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of support members (connecting flange of drum 32 and mounting hole labeled in attached Figure 3 above) and the drum are integrally formed (shown in attached Figure 3 above).
Regarding Claim 10, Miller et al. teaches:
10. (Original) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 1, wherein a width of the pipe cleaning machine (drain cleaner 20) is greater than or equal to 180 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm (Milwaukee – 254 mm), and a length of the pipe cleaning machine is greater than or equal to 430 mm and less than or equal to 550 mm (Milwaukee – 495.3 mm).
Miller et al. does not disclose the claimed dimensions. As previously presented, it is obvious that the Milwaukee device is essentially the same device as the Miller et al. device. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the Miller et al. device is the same overall dimensions as the Milwaukee device. Therefore, as presented Milwaukee discloses length within the claimed range. Milwaukee discloses a width that is 4mm or 0.157” larger than the claimed range. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make minor design changes to reduce the overall width by 4mm to achieve a maximum of 250mm with the motivation to slightly reduce the overall size, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, Miller et al. teaches:
12. (Currently Amended) A pipe cleaning machine (drain cleaner 20), comprising:
a handle (grip 52 of handle assembly 24) for holding;
a drum (drum 32) connected to the handle (through shaft of drive mechanism 48) and rotatable with respect to the handle;
a cable disposed in the drum (flexible cable 50);
an electric motor (motor 44) driving the cable to rotate and comprising, a rotor, a stator, (see discussion below) and an electric motor shaft driven by the rotor and extending along a first axis (centerline of connection shaft rotation as shown in attached Figure 3 below); and
a cable feeding assembly (feed control mechanisms 92) for supporting and feeding the cable (Paragraph [0040]);
wherein the drum is formed with a mounting cavity (labeled in attached Figure 3 below), and at least part of the rotor and the stator of the electric motor is disposed in the mounting cavity (see discussion below).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller et al. discloses a drain cleaner device for Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation. Miller et al. discloses a motor 44, however, he doesn’t disclose the type of motor employed in the device. The reference Milwaukee discloses a commercially available prior art drain cleaner device. Visually comparing the devices, they appear to be a very similar construction. Milwaukee discloses the dimensions of the device and discloses that the motor employed in the device is a brushless motor. Therefore, the motor inherently comprises a rotor and a stator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Miller et al. device be modified, if necessary, to employ a brushless motor comprising a rotor and stator as taught by Milwaukee since they are essentially the same device with a similar prior art date with the motivation for the motor to be capable of performing the intended operation. That being said, Miller discloses the location of the motor in Figure 3 where at least the majority of the motor is located within the labeled mounting cavity. Miller does not specifically show features that can be clearly identified as a rotor or stator, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the disclosed drawn structure outside the mounting cavity shown in attached Figure 3 above appears less likely to include the rotor or stator than the drawn structure inside the mounting cavity. Therefore, it would have been obvious that at least part of the stator or rotor are located within the mounting cavity as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, Miller et al. teaches:
13. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 12, further comprising a plurality of support members (connecting flange and mounting hole of drum 32, first support member, and assembly comprising drive mechanism housing, bearings, and connection shaft as labeled in attached Figure 3 above) disposed in the mounting cavity (shown in attached Figure 3 above) and disposed in a circumferential direction of the electric motor housing (shown in attached Figure 3 above).
Regarding Claim 14, Miller et al. teaches:
14. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of support members comprises a connection shaft (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) and a support bearing (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) sleeved on the connection shaft (shown in attached Figure 3 above), the support bearing is rotatable about the connection shaft, and the support bearing is in direct or indirect contact (indirect contact through connection shaft as shown in attached Figure 3 above) with an inner wall of the drum (mounting hole of flange labeled in attached Figure 3 above).
Regarding Claim 15, Miller et al. teaches:
15. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 12, further comprising support members comprising a first support member (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) and a second support member (labeled in attached Figure 3 above), wherein the first support member is disposed at a rear end of the drum (shown in attached Figure 3 above), the second support member is disposed in the handle or the electric motor housing (labeled in attached Figure 3 above – part of electric motor housing), and the first support member and the second support member are rotatable with respect to each other (labeled first support member rotates with drum 32 relative to cited second support member).
Regarding Claim 17, Miller et al. teaches:
17. (Original) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 12, wherein the pipe cleaning device (drain cleaner 20 – assumed to be pipe cleaning machine) further comprises a support seat (stand 64) disposed below the drum (drum 32)(shown in Figure 2), and a downward projection of a center of gravity of the pipe cleaning machine is in a region where a downward projection of the support seat and a downward projection of the drum overlap each other (stand 64 is positioned beneath a center of gravity of the drain cleaner 20, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 18, Miller et al. teaches:
18. (Original) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 12, wherein a downward projection of a center of gravity of the pipe cleaning device (drain cleaner 20 – assumed to be pipe cleaning machine) is on a rear middle portion of a downward projection of the drum (shown in Figure 2, stand 64 is positioned beneath a center of gravity of the drain cleaner 20, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 19, Miller et al. teaches:
19. (Currently Amended) The pipe cleaning machine according to claim 12, further comprising a support mechanism (labeled in attached Figure 3 below), wherein a a third front surface (labeled in attached Figure 3 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
723
1130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Miller et al. teaches:
20. (Original) The pipe cleani31ng machine according to claim 19, wherein the ratio of the transmission mechanism depth T1 (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) to the total inner depth T2 (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) is greater than 15% and smaller than 30% (measured to be 23% as shown in attached Figure 3 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 21, a search of the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the device as claimed in the context of the entire scope of the claims. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art because the device is not taught nor suggested as set forth in the entire context of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection
The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous Claim Objection.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, a new rejection of Claims 3 and 14 have been presented.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed October 3, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, 17, and 18 under Banholzer et al. US 2017/0165723 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed October 3, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 10 and 20 under Banholzer et al. US 2017/0165723 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 12-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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 on (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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723