DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Medicine
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 5/11/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 7 is/are canceled without prejudice, claim(s) 1, 12, & 16 is/are currently amended; all other claims are original or previously presented.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, 12, & 16
The claim states "wherein, in the standby state, the motor is activated without causing movement of the pad support." The specification provides insufficient information for a person skilled in the art to understand and determine that the motor can be activated without moving the pad support. All descriptions of the motor and being activated are about moving the pad support. Therefore, it appears that the claim contains subject matter for which the inventor did not have possession at the time the application was filed.
All dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
And/or
(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) 1-9, 12-17, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meadows et al. (US 4158246), hereinafter Meadows.
Regarding claim 1, 12, & 16. (Each claim status is listed above in the Status of Claims section) Meadows discloses a manual scrubber device [11] for a swimming pool or spa [Col5:line1-5; 11 is water proof and can be used for a swimming pool or spa], the manual scrubber device comprising
a housing [Fig 4; Col5:line1-5; 12-14 form a waterproof housing];
a pad support [130];
a motor within the housing [Fig 4 & 26; 94], wherein the motor is configured to move the pad support relative to the housing [Fig 4, 10, & 26; Col6:line54 – Col7:line6 & Col7:line31-33; 94 is connected to 130 through the gear system (90)]; and
an activation button [146] for controlling the motor between a deactivated state and a standby state [Fig 29; Col9:line62 – Col10:line2; 146 in Fig 29 when pressed supplies power to the motor thereby controlling the motor between a deactivated state (no power supplied) and a standby state (power is supplied)], wherein, in the standby state, the motor is activated without causing movement of the pad support [Fig 29; Col9:line62 – Col10:line2; when 146 is pressed the motor is supplied with power (i.e. activated) but without moving the pad support as the circuit is not completed by closing the pressure-activated switch (145)],
wherein, while the motor is in the standby state, the motor is configured to move the pad support relative to the housing responsive to an application of a pressing force moving the housing towards the pad support [Fig 26 & 29; Col8:line57 – Col9:line5 & Col9:line53-line61, & Col9:line66 – Col10:line2; to operate the motor both switches 145 & 146 are required to be pressed/actuated and 145 is pressed by pushing the housing toward the pad which moves 130 from an expanded state to a compressed state; once both 146 and 145 are pressed/actuated then the motor moves the pad support relative to the housing], and
wherein the manual scrubber device is waterproof and submersible [Col5:line1-5; as the device is waterproof it can be submerged].
For claim 16,
Fig 26 & 29; Col8:line57 – Col9:line5 & Col9:line53-line61, & Col9:line66 – Col10:line2; switch (146) must be pressed to place the motor into a standby state first and then once a force has moved 130 to close switch (145) then the motor is activated.
Regarding claim 2. Meadows discloses the manual scrubber device of claim 1, further comprising an onboard power source [Fig 4; 10].
Regarding claim 3. Meadows discloses the manual scrubber device of claim 1, further comprising a pad on the pad support [Fig 4; Col8:line1-14; 130 can receive pads or brushes].
Regarding claim 4. Meadows discloses the manual scrubber device of claim 3, wherein the pad comprises at least one of a scrubber, a sponge, or a brush [Col8:line1-32; the pad can be a scrubber or brush].
Regarding claim 5. Meadows discloses the manual scrubber device of claim 3, wherein the pad is removable from the pad support [Col8:line1-14; the pad is removable via snap-fit connections].
Regarding claim 6. Meadows discloses the manual scrubber device of claim 1, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the pad support relative to the housing [Fig 4, 10, & 26; Col6:line54 -Col7:line6 & Col7:line31-68; 94 rotates 130 and its associated pad relative to the housing].
Regarding claim 8. Meadows discloses the manual scrubber device of claim 1, further comprising an activation button for controlling the motor between a deactivated state and a standby state [Fig 26 & 29; Col8:line57 – Col9:line5 & Col9:line53-line61, & Col9:line66 – Col10:line2; 146 is an activation button for controlling the motor between a deactivated state and a standby state].
Regarding claim 9. Meadows discloses the manual scrubber device of claim 1, wherein the housing further comprises a gripping feature opposite from the pad support [Fig 4; 15].
Regarding claim 12. Meadows discloses a waterproof, submersible manual scrubber device for a swimming pool or spa, the manual scrubber device comprising a housing, a pad support, and a motor, the motor configured to move the pad support relative to the housing based on linear movement of the housing relative to the pad support. [Claim 12 has the same or similar limitations to claims 1 & 7 and is therefore rejected for the same or similar reasons as claims 1 & 7]
Regarding claim 13. Meadows discloses the waterproof, submersible manual scrubber device of claim 12, wherein the motor is configured to move the pad support based on linear movement from an expanded position to a compressed position relative to the pad support. [Claim 13 has the same or similar limitations to claims 7 and is therefore rejected for the same or similar reasons as claims 7]
Regarding claim 14. Meadows discloses the waterproof, submersible manual scrubber device of claim 12, further comprising a pad on the pad support, wherein the pad comprises at least one of a scrubber, a sponge, or a brush. [Claim 14 has the same or similar limitations to claims 4 and is therefore rejected for the same or similar reasons as claims 4]
Regarding claim 15. Meadows discloses the waterproof, submersible manual scrubber device of claim 12, wherein the motor is configured to move the pad support responsive to an application of a pressing force moving the housing towards the pad support. [Claim 15 has the same or similar limitations to claims 7 and is therefore rejected for the same or similar reasons as claims 7]
Regarding claim 17. Meadows discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising operating the manual scrubber in the active state, wherein in the active state, the motor is configured to rotate the pad support relative to the housing [Fig 4, 10, & 26; Col6:line54 -Col7:line6 & Col7:line31-68; once the motor (94) is activated it rotates 130 and its associated pad relative to the housing].
Regarding claim 19. Meadows discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising supporting a first pad on the pad support and replacing the first pad with a second pad, wherein the first pad and the second pad are different types of pads [Col7:line48-54 & Col7:line62-68; different types of pads can be attached to the pad support to perform different types of cleaning, scrubbing, or abrading].
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(s) 10-11 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Schonewille et al. (US 20080155769), hereinafter Schonewille.
Regarding claim 10. Meadows discloses a cleaning system comprising … and the manual scrubber device of claim 1,…
Meadows may not explicitly disclose a rod, a holder on the rod, and wherein the holder is configured to receive a portion of the housing of the manual scrubber device within a receiving area.
Schonewille teaches a similar cleaning system comprising a rod [Fig 1-2 & 16-17; 254], a holder on the rod [Fig 1-2 & 16-17; 262], and a scrubber [Fig 1-2, the scrubber is formed by 12 & 14] wherein the holder is configured to receive a portion of the housing of the manual scrubber device within a receiving area [Fig 1-2 & 16-17; the scrubber receives a portion of 12 of the scrubber in a receiving area (276)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning system as disclosed by Meadows to have a rod, a holder on the rod, and wherein the holder is configured to receive a portion of the housing of the manual scrubber device within a receiving area as taught by Schonewille for the purpose of providing an extended handle to the scrubber to reach areas at an extended position [Schonewille: ¶113].
Regarding claim 11. Meadows discloses the cleaning system of claim 10, wherein the holder is configured to hold the housing via friction fit [Schonewille: ¶113; the clamping of 262 to the housing holds it in place via a friction fit].
Regarding claim 18. Meadows discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising supporting the manual scrubber with a cleaning system comprising a rod and a holder on the rod, wherein supporting the manual scrubber comprises receiving a portion of the housing of the manual scrubber device within a receiving area of the holder. [Claim 18 has the same or similar limitations to claims xxx and is therefore rejected for the same or similar reasons as claims 10]
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that Meadows does not teach “an activation button for controlling the motor between a deactivated state and a standby state, wherein, in the standby state, the motor is activated without causing movement of the pad support, wherein, while the motor is in the standby state, the motor is configured to move the pad support relative to the housing responsive to an application of a pressing force moving the housing towards the pad support.” The Applicant claims that 145 of Meadows as the activation button cannot place the motor into a standby state where the motor is activated without causing movement of the pad support.However 145 is not cited as the activation button. 146 of Meadows is the activation button and as is shown above does place the motor into a standby state where the motor is activated without causing movement of the pad support. See the rejection above for the full rejection. It is also noted that “wherein, in the standby state, the motor is activated without causing movement of the pad support” does not have support in the specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights