DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 4/10/2024.
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheckelhoff (US 2016/0102425 A1).
Re claim 21, Scheckelhoff disclose a fabric treating appliance (abstract) comprising:
a cabinet (ref. 52, see fig. 1) defining an interior and having a top wall (see fig. 1 top wall of ref. 20) defining an access opening (ref. 112);
a cover (ref. 54) movable relative to the cabinet between opened and closed positions to
selectively close the access opening;
a tub (ref. 64) located within the interior and having an open top aligned with the access
opening;
a rotatable basket (ref. 70) located within the tub and having a loading opening aligned
with the open top and the access opening;
a scrubbing tool seat (ref. 112 ¶ [0037]-[0040], see fig. 3) recessed in the top wall; and
a scrubbing tool (ref. 100) comprising a gripper portion (ref. 106) and a set of bristles (ref. 116, ¶ [0042] brush attachment) mounted on the tool opposite the gripper portion, with the scrubbing tool removably disposed (¶ [0037]-[0039] removably positioned) in the scrubbing tool seat and retained by the scrubbing tool seat when the scrubbing tool is not utilized by a user (see fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, as applied above.
Re claims 38-40¸ Scheckelhoff discloses as shown above and further discloses wherein the scrubbing tool includes a first magnet (¶ [0033] removably mounted/position on/mounted on; see also “one or more intermediate components…to facilitate the positioning or mounting…”). Regarding “wherein the scrubbing tool seat includes a second magnet, and wherein the scrubbing tool is retained by the scrubbing tool seat by way of a magnetic relationship between the first magnet and the second magnet”, the inclusion of additional complementary magnets would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary in the art at the time of filing, for purposes of alignment and stronger mounting. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts. Regarding “wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are magnetically aligned with each other such that the first magnet and the second magnet are magnetically attracted to each other”, the alignment of magnets for mounting is conventionally known in the art. Regarding “wherein magnetic relationship between the first magnet and the second magnet can be adapted such that the scrubbing tool can be received by and retained by the scrubbing tool seat in each of a bristles up arrangement or a bristles down arrangement”, this is a statement of intended use. Here, two magnets should enable mounting in any of a rotational direction in the plane of the magnetic connection. Moreover, the limitation is recited in the alternative “or” and here, the prior art teaching at least the bristles up arrangement (see fig. 3).
Claims 22-24 and 27-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, as applied above, in view of Dunsbergen et al. (US 6353954 B1).
Re claim 22, Scheckelhoff discloses as shown above including a removably positioned scrubbing tool, but does not disclose wherein the scrubbing tool seat includes a moveable portion defining a retracted position and a raised position. However, Dunsbergen discloses it is known in the fabric treating art (abstract) to provide a scrubbing tool seat (ref. 87 as part of ref. 72, 76, 78, see figs. 7 and 15-16) for removably holding a scrubbing tool (ref. 86), wherein the scrubbing tool seat includes a moveable portion (ref. 72) defining a retracted position (fig. 2, closed and seat 87 is lowered into opening) and a raised position (fig. 1, open and seat 87 is raised for user access).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fabric treating appliance of Scheckelhoff to further include a scrubbing tool seat including a movable portion, as suggested by Dunsbergen, in order to conceal the scrubbing tool when not in use.
Re claims 23-24, Dunsbergen further discloses wherein the moveable portion in the retracted position enables a top portion of the scrubbing tool to be retained at one of a flush height with the top wall or a relative height below the top wall (see fig. 1, scrubbing tool 86 will be below the top wall). wherein the moveable portion in the raised position enables a top portion of the scrubbing tool to allow for user access to remove the scrubbing tool (see fig. 1).
Re claim 27-31, Regarding “wherein the scrubbing tool defines a set of retention tabs, wherein the scrubbing tool seat defines at least one sidewall extension, and wherein the scrubbing tool is retained by the scrubbing tool seat by way of a retention relationship between the set of retention tabs and the at least one sidewall extension”, Dunsbergen further discloses threads for retaining the scrubbing tool (see figs. 16-20 threads 208, necessarily engaging sidewall extensions of the scrubbing tool seat 87). wherein the set of retention tabs are spaced about a periphery of the scrubbing tool (see figs. 16-20). wherein the set of retention tabs are keyed to enable the set of retention tabs to pass below the at least one sidewall extension (thread expected to pass below at least a portion of the top of the thread). wherein the retention relationship between the set of retention tabs and the at least one sidewall extension enables at least one of a locking or coupling of the scrubbing tool within the scrubbing tool seat (inherent in thread tightening). wherein the retention relationship between the set of retention tabs and the at least one sidewall extension defines a frictional interaction between the set of retention tabs and the at least one sidewall extension (inherent in thread tightening).
Re claims 32-37, Regarding “wherein the scrubbing tool seat defines a set of detents adapted to define a gripping force between the set of detents”, Dunsbergen further discloses threads (ref. 208) for coupling the scrubbing tool to the scrubbing tool seat and Dunsbergen further discloses it is known to provide twist-lock detents (refs. 192, 190, 196, see figs. 17-19) for gripping and coupling components. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the thread locking scrubbing tool seat with detents of a twist-lock coupling, as known in Dunsbergen, for purposes of ease of removal by twisting. wherein the scrubbing tool defines a neck portion between the gripper portion and the set of bristles (see figs. 17-19 neck portion between ref. 86a and 186). wherein the set of detents are adapted to operably retain the scrubbing tool within the scrubbing tool seat by way of receiving the scrubbing tool neck portion (see figs. 16-19 thread 208 is located at neck portion). wherein the set of detents defines a frictional relationship with the neck portion of the scrubbing tool (inherent in twist-lock). Regarding “wherein the neck portion of the scrubbing tool can be received by the set of detents such that the scrubbing tool can be received by and retained by the scrubbing tool seat in each of a bristles up arrangement or a bristles down arrangement”, this recitation is recited in the alternative “or”, here, the bristles can be installed down. Regarding “wherein the set of detents includes at least one spring clip”, the substitution of known detent locking mechanism, e.g. spring clip, for L-shaped twist locks with raised ridges, is simple an obvious engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art of mechanical coupling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-26 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. The prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate wherein the moveable portion includes a tool surface that receives the set of bristles, and wherein the tool surface moves relative to a lower floor of the scrubbing tool seat, in the context of claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights