Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed handle assembly in that applicant claims specific structure related to the handle assembly being the gripping feature. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed scrub bar assembly in that applicant has not claimed any functional language associated with the claimed scrub bar assembly. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed blade assembly in that applicant claims specific structure related to the blade assembly being the blade. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed pivoting assembly in that applicant claims specific structure related to the pivoting assembly being the releasable lock.
Regarding claim 2, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed c-clip engagement mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the c-clip engagement mechanism is detailed as a c-clip.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claim 8 is 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. The phrase rotatable relative to the handle body between in at least the first position or the second position makes it unclear to whether the rotation is made when in the first or second position or between the first and second positions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,110,052 to Whitman.
Referring to claim 1, Whitman discloses a multi-positional cleaning device comprising, a handle assembly – at 38, 46-50 and 84, having a handle body – 38,46,48,84, and at least one gripping feature – at 50 and at outer surface of 38,46,48,84, a scrub bar assembly – at 16-26, coupled to the handle assembly – at 38,84 – see via item 22,40 – see figures 1-2, a blade assembly – at 70,72,74,76,78, having a blade – at 70, configured to wipe a surface – see figures 1-2, and a pivoting assembly – at 80 and 86-100, securing the handle assembly – at 84, and the blade assembly – at 70,72, to one another – see figures 1-2, such that the blade assembly – at 70,72, may be selectively pivoted with respect to the handle assembly – at 84, about a pivot axis – see at 98 and see column 3 lines 52-72, the pivoting assembly having a releasable lock – at 88,90,92,94,96,100, coupled to the handle body – at 84 – see figures 1-2, the releasable lock – at 88,90,92,94,96,100, selectively fixing the blade assembly – at 70,72, in at least one of a first position or a second position – see figures 1-2 and column 3 line 32 to 72.
Referring to claim 2, Whitman further discloses the releasable lock – at 88,90,92,94,96,100, further comprises an C-clip engagement mechanism – see at 96 in figures 1-2 which engages c shaped components of 74,76, movable between an unlocked position and a locked position – see figures 1-3 and column 3 lines 32-72. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed c-clip engagement mechanism item 96 of Whitman, is at least functionally equivalent to applicant’s disclosed c-clip engagement mechanism in that item 96 has similar function of removably securing components together as seen in figures 1-2 of Whitman. Further, the claim as presently written does not require a c-shaped clip but only requires a mechanism that can engage a c shaped clip.
Referring to claim 3, Whitman further discloses the blade assembly – at 70-78, being movable between at least the first position and the second position when the C- clip engagement mechanism – at 90,96, is in the unlocked position – see figures 1-2 and column 3 lines 32-72, and the blade assembly – at 70-78, being restricted from moving between at least the first position and the second position when the C-clip engagement mechanism – at 90,96, is in the locked position – see figures 1-2 and column 3 lines 32-72.
Referring to claim 4, Whitman further discloses the releasable lock further comprises a protrusion – at 92,94,100, for applying an unlocking force – see figures 1-2 and column 3 lines 32-72.
Referring to claim 5, Whitman further discloses the handle body includes a first longitudinal axis – see axis of 84 and axis of 38-48 in figure 1.
Referring to claim 6, Whitman further discloses the blade assembly includes a second longitudinal axis – see axis of 70-78 in figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 7, Whitman further discloses the blade assembly – at 70-78, is positionable in at least the first position or the second position relative to the handle body – at 84 – see figures 1-3 and column 3 lines 32-72.
Referring to claim 8, Whitman further discloses the blade assembly – at 70,78, is rotatable relative to the handle body – at 84, between in at least the first position or the second position – see pivoting which would cause rotation detailed in column 3 lines 32-72.
Referring to claim 9, Whitman further discloses in the first position, the second longitudinal axis – of 70-78, is arranged at a first angle relative to the first longitudinal axis – of item 84 – see figures 1-2, and in the second position, the second longitudinal axis – of 70-78, is arranged at a second angle relative to the first longitudinal axis – of 84 – see figures 1-2 and column 3 lines 32-72 where items 70-78 are moved into different positions via operation of the releasable lock.
Referring to claim 10, Whitman further discloses the first angle is equal and opposite to the second angle – see figures 1-2 and column 3 lines 32-72 where in the unlocked position the device of Whitman is capable of having the blade assembly move into a position where the first and second angles are equal and opposite to each other about the pivot – at 98.
Referring to claim 11, Whitman further discloses the blade assembly further comprising a carriage – at 74-78, the blade – at 70, received by the carriage – at 74-78, to ensure that the blade – at 70, is positioned in a desired orientation and/or position – see figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 12, Whitman further discloses the scrub bar assembly including a scrub bar – at 16,18, and a base section – at 20, the base section – at 20, extending at a predetermined angle from the handle body – at 38,84 – see figure 1, the scrub bar – at 16,18, and the base section – at 20, including at least one cooperating feature – at 26,34,36, that ensure that the scrub bar – at 16,18, is positioned on the base section – at 20, in a desired orientation and/or position – see figures 1 and 7-8.
Referring to claim 13, Whitman further discloses the at least one gripping feature includes at least one elongate rib – between items 58 and 68 and/or between items 64 and 40 as seen in figure 1, extending substantially parallel to the first longitudinal axis – of 84 – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 14, Whitman further discloses the at least one gripping feature includes a substantially smooth surface – see smooth outer surface of items 38-38 and 84 as seen in figure 1.
Referring to claim 15, Whitman further discloses the at least one gripping feature includes a plurality of grooves – at 50 – and recessed/grooved surface between 52 and 38, substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis – of items 38-48 – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 18, Whitman further discloses the scrub bar further comprising a front side, including connection pads – see at 28 for connecting item 14 to item 20, and a back side, including water channels – between items 14 capable of allowing water flow as seen in figure 1.
Referring to claim 19, Whitman further discloses the blade – at 70, is removeable from the carriage – at 74,76 – see figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 20, Whitman further discloses a first gripping feature – between 52 and 38 as seen in figure 1, a diameter of the first gripping feature is smaller at a center point of the first gripping feature than at a first and a second end – at 52 and – at 46 – see figure 1, and a second gripping feature – outer surface of 38 and/or 48, a diameter of the second gripping feature dimensioned greater than the diameter of the first gripping feature – see figure 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman as applied to claim 12 above.
Referring to claim 16, Whitman does not disclose the base section extends between a 10°-40° angle from the handle body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Whitman and have the base section extend at any suitable angle from the handle body including the 10-40 degrees claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the scrub bar assembly to be positioned for the user to more easily scrub/clean the surface to be cleaned during use.
Referring to claim 17, Whitman does not disclose the base section extends between a 40°-70° angle from the handle body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Whitman and have the base section extend at any suitable angle from the handle body including the 40-70 degrees claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the scrub bar assembly to be positioned for the user to more easily scrub/clean the surface to be cleaned during use.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to squeegee devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 1,117,513 to North – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,847,938 to Unger – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,255,405 to Samuelsson et al. – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,539,99 to Stanton – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,862,562 to Erken – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,931,690 to Cox – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0254009 to Tsai et al. – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,748,074 to Guizzi – shows squeegee device
U.S. Pat. No. 12,471,744 to Bussell et al. – shows squeegee device
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643