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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 8 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 2 recites two instances of “a brush plate”. The second instance should be amended to recite “the brush plate”. Claims 2 – 8 should recite “the cleaning device”. Clean up all instances of “brush roll” where it should recite “roller brush”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the brush plate holder" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a brush plate holder”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hinge rod" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a hinge rod”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second motor" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a second motor”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the brush tray" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a brush tray”.
Claim 2 further recites “a base plate’ in line 2. It is unclear if this is the base plate of claim 1 or if Applicant is introducing a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “the base plate” of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upper surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “an upper surface”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the end of the control rod" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “an end of the control rod”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the guard" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a guard”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “an interior”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a lower surface.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a lower surface.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "on the other side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “on another side”.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the plastic holder (31) is provided with a first strip (32) on one side and a second strip (33) on the other side; the other side of the first strip (32) is the first locating plate (34), the other side of the second strip (33) is the second locating plate (35), the second locating plate (35)”. The limitations are vague in that it is unclear as to what exactly is being claimed. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be examined as “the plastic holder (31) is provided with a first strip (32) on a first side and a second strip (33) on a second side; the first side of the first strip (32) is the first locating plate (34), the second side of the second strip (33) is the second locating plate (35),
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the conduit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a conduit”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the end away" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “an end away”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the center brush plates" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “center plates”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the output shaft" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “an output shaft”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the clearance" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a clearance”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bend" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a bend”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the water stopper" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a water stopper”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the length" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a length”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the debris hopper" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a debris hopper”.
Claims 2 – 8 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoon (U. S. Patent No. 4,041,567).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Burgoon teaches a cleaning device (Fig. 1) integrating a roller brush (sweeping unit, 36) and a disc brush (scrubbing unit, 44), characterized by a control rod (lifter, 184; Fig. 9), a brush plate (platform, 50) hinged below the control rod (184; Fig. 8), the brush plate (50) including a base plate (160), a squeegee (102); a disc brush (44) and a roller brush (36), the working end (156) of the disc brush (44) set below the brush plate (50), the disc brush including a first motor (hydraulic motors, 166), the first motor (166) fixed to the base plate (160); the output end (158) of the first motor (166) is connected to the brush plate holder (156), the bottom of the brush plate holder (156) is fixed to the brush plate (50), the roller brush (38) includes a bearing hinge (bearing blocks, 72), the hinge end of the bearing hinge is connected to the hinge rod (40), the other end of the hinge rod (40) is connected to a second motor (motor, 82), and the output end of the second motor (82) is fixed with a brush roller (Fig. 5).
Burgoon does not teach the specifics of the connections of a squeegee connected below the brush plate; the working end of both the roller brush set below the brush plate, the bearing hinge is fixed to the upper surface of the base plate; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Burgoon to further include a squeegee connected below the brush plate; the working end of both the roller brush set below the brush plate, the bearing hinge is fixed to the upper surface of the base plate since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although Burgoon teaches a cleaning device, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious a brush tray includes a base plate with a protective cover attached to the upper surface of the base plate, a flap hinged above the cover, a hinge seat connected above the cover, a first hinge member connected at the other end of the hinge seat, a second hinge member connected at the other end of the first hinge member, the second hinge member connected to the end of the control rod near the brush tray assembly, a water stopper fixed to the upper surface of the base plate , and a grip fixed to the outer wall of the cover; as required by claim 2.
Although Burgoon teaches a cleaning device, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious a limit slot, the limit slot has a hinge rod inside the slot; as required by claim 3. .
Although Burgoon teaches a cleaning device, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious a debris hopper fixed on the lower surface of the base plate, and the debris hopper is located between the brush roller and the brush plate; as required by claim 4.
Although Burgoon teaches a cleaning device, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious the squeegee has a plastic holder, the plastic holder is provided with a first strip on one side and a second strip on the other side; the other side of the first strip is the first locating plate, the other side of the second strip is the second locating plate, the second locating plate; as required by claim 5
Although Burgoon teaches a cleaning device, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious two groups of brush plates, and the rotation direction of each group is toward the center brush plates; the brush plate holder is fixed on the output shaft of the first motor, and the clearance of the brush plate holder from the bottom of the base plate is two centimeters; as required by claim 7.
Although Burgoon teaches a cleaning device, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious a water stopper; as required by claim 8.
Claim 6 is objected as being dependent on objected and rejected claim 5.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: CN 115530696 A to Lu teaches a cleaning device integrating a roller brush and a disc brush, and a control rod; a brush plate hinged below the control rod, the brush plate including a base plate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723