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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/11/2025, 7/23/2024, 4/16/2024, and 12/26/2023 are being considered.
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, 4, 14, 19 and 20 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.
Claims 3, 4, 14, 19 and 20 recite the limitation “wherein the extender handle is a unitary structure that is non-flexible, wherein the scrubber device is a unitary structure that is entirely flexible”. It is unclear what is considered to be non flexible and flexible. Although some materials have a greater stiffness than others, all materials are flexible to some degree. As such the claims are determined to be indefinite. The Examiner suggests changing the claims to read “wherein the extender handle is a unitary structure made of a plastic material made of silicone
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 11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravinett (US 2013/0042425) in view of Wachtell (US 3,134,121)
Regarding claim 11, Ravinett discloses an extender handle configured to securely hold a removable scrubber device, the extender handle comprising:
a connector portion (Item 16) comprising:
a first surface being configured to receive the scrubber device (bottom surface of Item 108);
a protrusion disposed on the first surface, wherein the protrusion has a shape configured to fit through a scrubber gap that extends through the scrubber device (Paragraph 38);
a second surface (top surface of Item 108) opposite to the first surface;
a bridge (item 16) extending across the second surface, from a first edge of the connector portion to a second edge of the connector portion that is opposite to the second edge of the connector portion, and wherein the bridge is configured to receive a strap of the scrubber device (Item 16 goes around Items 24, 42, and 44); and
a handle portion (Item 96 ) extending away from a third edge of the connector portion (edge of bridge).
Ravinett fails to explicitly disclose wherein the scrubber device comprises scrubbing fins.
Wachtel teaches a scrubber device with an extender handle, wherein the scrubber device comprises scrubbing fins (Item 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the fins/bristles of Watchel for the general cleaning implement of Ravinett. Bristles are known to be able to clean many different surfaces and/or objects. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to the predictable result of the bristles being able to do the cleaning action as originally disclosed by Ravinett.
Regarding claim 13, Ravinett in view of Wachtell disclose the extender handle of claim 11, further comprising: a shelf positioned at a point where the handle portion extends away from the third edge of the connector portion, wherein the shelf is configured to support at least a portion of an edge of the scrubber device (Ravinett Item 30).
Regarding claim 15, Ravinett in view of Wachtell disclose the extender handle of claim 11, wherein the protrusion has a polygonal shape, and wherein the scrubber gap has a polygonal shape corresponding to the polygonal shape of the protrusion. (Ravinett Figures 1 and 5a. The examiner to interpret the “polygonal shape” to mean: In geometry, a polygon is a plane figure made up of line segments connected to form a closed polygonal chain).
Regarding claim 16, Ravinett in view of Wachtell disclose the extender handle of claim 11, wherein the protrusion is positioned adjacent to a fourth edge of the connector portion, and wherein the fourth edge is opposite to the third edge (Ravinett Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 17-18 allowed.
Claim 12 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1, 12 and 17, the prior art of record Ravinett in view of Wachtell does not disclose a bridge with some ridges in which the strap of the scrubber device is between the ridges along opposing edges of the bridge. References such as Collins (US 312,611) and Hamilton (US 1,339,026) show extender handles for brushes that have straps, but there is no reference that discloses a bridge with a ridge and protrusion with a corresponding gap. Since there are no known references that in combination with all other limitations in the independent claims, the claims are determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Claims 2, 5-10, and 18 are allowed as being dependent from an allowed claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights