DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 29 May 2026.
Claim 9 is canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) and the specification objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection(s) and the specification objection(s).
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the brass spring of Weiss not being a supporting portion is not found persuasive. The Applicant admits the spring prevents the annular channel from closing, this is synonymous with providing support for the annular channel.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the adapter 18 are moot in light of the new rejections below.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for at least the same reasons as explained above.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
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.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "locking part," first introduced in claim 4:
the locking part performs the function of locking the connecting sleeve to the blowing and suction device and may comprise a ring band and an adjustment buckle, or an equivalent thereof (see for example [0042]; FIG. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weiss (US 2179654), hereafter referred to as Weiss.
Regarding Claim 1, Weiss discloses the following:
A cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6), comprising:
a connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6), wherein the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6) comprises a first opening (opening in 19 adjacent to lower portion of 26; as shown in FIG. 5) and a second opening (upper portion of channel 16, FIG. 5), and the first opening (opening in 19 adjacent to lower portion of 26; as shown in FIG. 5) is communicated to the second opening (upper portion of channel 16, FIG. 5); and
a supporting portion (26, FIG. 1, 5-6), wherein the supporting portion (26, FIG. 1, 5-6) is connected to the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6) to support (see Page 2, Col. 2, lines 15-35) the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6),
wherein the supporting portion (26, FIG. 1, 5-6) is an elastic (spring brass; see Page 2, Col. 2, lines 18-20) supporting portion (26, FIG. 1, 5-6), and the supporting portion (26, FIG. 1, 5-6) is connected to the first opening (opening in 19 adjacent to lower portion of 26; as shown in FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Weiss discloses the following:
The cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6) according to claim 1, wherein
the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6) is a flexible (molded rubber; see Page 2, Col. 1, lines 0-5)connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 3, Weiss discloses the following:
The cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6) according to claim 1,
wherein a radius of the first opening (opening in 19 adjacent to lower portion of 26; as shown in FIG. 5) is less than a radius (as seen in FIG. 5; also see Page 2, Col. 1, lines 8-10) of the second opening (upper portion of channel 16, FIG. 5); the second opening (upper portion of channel 16, FIG. 5) is configured to be connected to a blowing and suction device (It is noted, while the intended use for the device disclosed by Weiss connects to a faucet, the device is still capable of performing the intended use of the Instant Application of connecting to a blowing and suction device.)
Regarding Claim 17, Weiss discloses the following:
The cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6) according to claim 1,
wherein the supporting portion (26, FIG. 1, 5-6) comprises several supporting claws (28, FIG. 5-7); each of the supporting claws (28, FIG. 5-7) comprises an outer surface and an inner surface opposite to the outer surface; and the supporting claws (28, FIG. 5-7) are connected to the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6) through the outer surface to support the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 18, Weiss discloses the following:
The cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6) according to claim 17,
wherein a protective layer (13, FIG. 5-6) is arranged inside the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6), and the protective layer (13, FIG. 5-6) is configured to cover the inner surface.
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.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US 2179654), hereafter referred to as Weiss, in view of Hurst (US 5028077), hereafter referred to as Hurst.
Regarding Claim 4, Weiss discloses the following:
The cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6) according to claim 3,
wherein the connecting sleeve (19, FIG. 5-6) comprises a sleeve part (19)
Weiss does not explicitly disclose the following:
a locking part; the locking part is connected to the sleeve part; and the locking part is configured to connect the sleeve part to the blowing and suction device.
However Hurst teaches the following:
a locking part (18, FIG. 3); the locking part (18, FIG. 3) is connected to the sleeve part (12, FIG. 1); and the locking part (18, FIG. 3) is configured to connect the sleeve part (12, FIG. 1) to the blowing and suction device (It is noted, while the intended use for the device disclosed by Hurst connects to a faucet, the device is still capable of performing the intended use of the Instant Application of connecting to a blowing and suction device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end collar portion of the sleeve part as disclosed by Weiss, wherein the end portion of the sleeve part comprises a locking part as disclosed by Hurst, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a liquid-tight seal at the collar portion of the sleeve part (see Hurst Col. 4, lines 55-65).
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US 2179654), hereafter referred to as Weiss, as modified by Hurst (US 5028077), hereafter referred to as Hurst, as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Shaker (US 20130090573), hereafter referred to as Shaker.
Regarding Claim 5, Weiss as modified by Hurst discloses the following:
The cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6) according to claim 4,
Hurst continues to teach the following:
wherein the locking part (18, FIG. 3) comprises a ring band (26, FIG. 3);
Weiss as modified by Hurst does not explicitly disclose the following:
one side of the sleeve part is provided with several first connecting portions; and the ring band passes through the first connecting portions and is fixed to the sleeve part.
However Shaker teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide a plurality of loops (1012) on a collar to maintain the position of the band portion of a compression device which may include a worm gear (see [0055], claim 8);
Weiss and Hurst as modified by Shaker results in the following limitation(s):
one side of the sleeve part (19 of Weiss) is provided with several first connecting portions (1012 of Shaker); and the ring band (26 of Hurst) passes through the first connecting portions (1012 of Shaker) and is fixed to the sleeve part (19 of Weiss).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end collar portion of the sleeve part as disclosed by Weiss and modified by Hurst, wherein the end portion of the sleeve part comprises a plurality of loops to hold the locking part, as disclosed by Shaker, with the reasonable expectation of successfully maintaining the position of the locking part (see Shaker, [0055]).
Regarding Claim 6, Weiss as modified by Hurst and Shaker discloses the following:
The cleaning device (10; FIG. 5-6) according to claim 5,
Hurst continues to teach the following:
wherein the locking part (FIG. 3) further comprises an elastic adjustment buckle (18 in combination with 28, FIG. 3); the ring band (26, FIG. 3) is connected to the elastic adjustment buckle (18 in combination with 28, FIG. 3); the ring band (26, FIG. 3) is arranged around the second opening (14, FIG. 5 of Weiss); and the elastic adjustment buckle is configured to adjust a size of the second opening (14, FIG. 5 of Weiss).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 10-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claim(s), the inclusion of:
wherein the third connecting portion is a convex point; the second connecting portion is provided with a sliding chute and a rotating groove; and the convex point enters the rotating groove from the sliding chute to enable the convex point to rotate inside the rotating groove, so that the middle portion rotates relative to the supporting portion;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Weiss (US 2179654) and Hurst (US 5028077).
The Examiner notes Weiss is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
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
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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights