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 (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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pivot point comprising a ball and socket joint of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-20 contain at least one of the phrases “is comprised of” or “comprised of”. These are grammatically improper. Consider ––comprises–– or ––comprising––. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: locking member in claims 5, 9, 12, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 only recites the additional limitation of “wherein the body is comprised of a handle”. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends recites the limitation “a body comprised of a handle”. Consequently, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. (US PGPub 2004/0237228, "King").
1. King teaches a motorized cleaning brush device (10) comprising:
a body (combination of handle 16 and support member 14, see King fig. 1) comprising a handle (16);
a head (12) comprised of a bristle (cleaning member 102 may be bristled, see King fig. 4);
a motor (64, King [0029] and fig. 3));
a battery (28, King [0018] and fig. 1); and
a button (switch 42, King [0019] and fig. 9).
2. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 1, wherein the bristle is removable from the head (cleaning member 102 is connected to the shaft by a retention member 110. Separating the retention member from the shaft removes the cleaning member, see King fig. 3 and [0030]).
4. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a telescopic body (support 14 is telescopic, King [0021]).
5. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 4, wherein the telescopic body is comprised of a locking member (gripping members between sections 50 lock the relative position of the telescopic sections, see King fig. 4).
6. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 1, wherein the button activates the motor (switch 42 controls power to the motor, King [0019]).
7. King teaches a motorized cleaning brush device (10) comprising:
a hollow body (combination of handle 16 and support member 14 include hollow portion 66, see King fig. 3 and [0022]) comprising a handle (16);
a head (12) attached to the body via a pivot point (fork 68 acts as a pivot, King fig. 4 and [0023]), the head comprising a bristle (cleaning member 102 may be bristled, see King fig. 4) and a nozzle (nozzles 74,108);
a motor (64);
a pump (44, King [0020] and fig. 9);
a battery (28, King [0018] and fig. 1); and
a button (switch 42, King [0019] and fig. 9).
8. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 7, wherein the hollow body is comprised of a telescopic body (support 14 includes telescopic sections 50, King [0021]).
9. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 8, wherein the telescopic body is comprised of a first locking member that secures the telescopic body at a fixed length (gripping members between sections 50 lock the relative position of the telescopic sections, see King fig. 4).
10. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 7, wherein the pivot point is comprised of a hinge (pivot type hinge 68, King [0023]).
12. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 7, wherein the pivot point is comprised of a second locking member that locks the pivot point at an angle (68 includes a locking mechanism, King figs. 5-8 and [0023]-[0027]).
13. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 7, wherein the motor rotates the bristle (motor drives scrubbing device, King [0021]).
14. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 7, wherein the pump expels a liquid from within the hollow body and out of the nozzle (pump 44 controls fluid spray from 66, see King [0020]-[0022]).
15. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 7, wherein the head is comprised of a cleaning blade (periphery of cover element over 102 is capable of use as a cleaning blade, see King fig. 3).
Regarding claims 16 and 20,
16. King does not explicitly recite a method of using a motorized cleaning brush device.
However, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. MPEP § 2112.02. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
King teaches a motorized cleaning brush device (10) comprising: a hollow body configured to be filled with a liquid cleaning solution (combination of handle 16 and support member 14 include hollow portion 66, see King fig. 3 and [0022]) comprising a handle (16); a head (12) attached to the body via a pivot point (fork 68 acts as a pivot, King fig. 4 and [0023]), the head comprising a bristle (cleaning member 102 may be bristled, see King fig. 4) and a nozzle (nozzles 74,108); a motor (64); a pump (44, King [0020] and fig. 9); a battery (28, King [0018] and fig. 1); and a button controlling the motor (switch 42 controls power to the motor that drives the scrubbing device, King [0019]-[0021] and fig. 9), wherein the button activates the motor (switch 42 controls power to the motor, King [0019]), and further comprising an additional button (switch 46) that controls the distribution of cleaning solution (King [0031]).
Because the device of King would carry out the claimed steps of providing a motorized cleaning brush device comprised of a body comprised of a head comprised of a bristle, and a motor; filling the body with a liquid cleaning solution; pressing a button of the motorized cleaning brush device to expel the liquid cleaning solution out of a nozzle of the head; pressing the button to activate the motor to spin the bristle; and cleaning a surface via the bristles during its normal and usual operation, it anticipates the claimed process.
17. King teaches the method of using a motorized cleaning brush device of claim 16, wherein the motorized cleaning brush device comprises a cleaning blade (periphery of cover element over 102 is capable of use as a cleaning blade, see King fig. 3).
19. King teaches the method of using a motorized cleaning brush device of claim 17, further comprising a step of locking the body at a length via a locking member (one of ordinary skill would understand the members joining sections 50 of the telescopic handle 14 to lock the relative position of the telescopic sections, see King fig. 4).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Maupin (US 4032239).
11. King teaches the motorized cleaning brush device of claim 7, but does not teach that the pivot point is comprised of a ball and socket joint.
However, Maupin teaches the use of a ball and socket joint as a pivot point in a cleaning device having a hollow handle through which fluid is distributed (Maupin 4:35-67 and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a ball and socket joint such as that taught by Maupin in the cleaning device of King, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of known pivot joint for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Starr (US 3396417).
18. King teaches the method of using a motorized cleaning brush device of claim 17, but does not teach a step of using the cleaning blade to scrape the surface.
However, Starr teaches a method of using a motorized cleaning brush (Starr fig. 1) including a motor (50) configured to drive a brush head (20) including bristles (44) and a cleaning blade (squeegee 14), comprising a step of using the cleaning blade to scrape a surface being cleaned (Starr 3:23-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device and method of King according to the teachings of Starr such that the device included a flexible cleaning blade such as a squeegee and the method included a step of using the cleaning blade to scrape the surface, as doing so would reduce streaking when cleaning transparent or translucent surfaces such as a window (Starr 3:45-57).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723