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 .
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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the rigid hose guide" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer (US 6854912) in view of Ribbe (US 10682034) and Clark (US 8011521).
Regarding claim 1, Dyer teaches a mop system, comprising: a shaft (14) having a first end and a second end; a handle (at 16) coupled to the first end of the shaft, the handle comprising: a first end; a second end opposite the first end and coupled to the first end of the shaft; and an actuator (42) disposed in the handle adjacent the second end; a head (12) releasably coupled (via bolt 57) to the second end of the shaft, the head further comprising: a revolving mechanism (51) coupled to the shaft with a release clip (59), and a bottom surface (46); and a flexible exit hose (24) that is in fluid communication with the bottle.
Dyer does not teach a body disposed on the shaft, the body further comprising: a removable bottle comprising: a first end having a lid, a second end having a discharge valve, and a grip cover; a mechanism for activating the discharge valve of the removable bottle.
Ribbe teaches a body (450) disposed on the shaft, the body further comprising: a removable bottle (410) comprising: a first end having a lid (412), a second end having a discharge valve (420), and a mechanism (430) for activating the discharge valve of the removable bottle.
Clark teaches a grip cover (112).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Dyer with a body disposed on the shaft, the body further comprising: a removable bottle comprising: a first end having a lid, a second end having a discharge valve, and mechanism for activating the discharge valve of the removable bottle as taught by Ribbe, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of simple substitution of one known reservoir for another with predictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a grip cover as taught by Clark for the purpose of creating friction between the bottle and a user’s hand (Clark, col. 5, ll. 47-50).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the actuator is configured for operation in a variety of hand grip positions (the actuator of Dyer can be operated in more than one hand position).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein a texture is applied to or formed on the first end of the handle (Dyer, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the release clip is configured to release the head of the mop system from the shaft upon depression thereof (Dyer, col. 6, ll. 15-20).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the bottom surface of the head comprises a first channel forming a first retention device (Dyer, 47), a second channel forming a second retention device (Dyer, 47), and a center channel (Dyer, between reference numerals 45 and 46 in Fig. 4) flanked by a first track and a second track.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 5, wherein the first retention device and the second retention device are configured to releasably receive an attachment (Dyer, col. 5, ll. 49-55).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 5, wherein the first track and the second track are configured to receive an attachment (Dyer teaches adding more fastener strips if desired, see col. 5, ll. 49-55).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the discharge valve further comprises a discharge valve body housing a plunger (Ribbe 423), a seal (Ribbe 424) that receives the bottom end of the plunger, a spring (425) that at least partially envelops the plunger, a retainer (Ribbe 426) that is placed atop the spring and plunger, a valve seal (Ribbe Fig. 8) that is placed atop the retainer, and an O-ring (Ribbe Fig. 8) that is placed at the bottom of the discharge valve body assembly.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the grip cover is press fit onto the bottle (Clark, col. 6, ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the grip cover is attached to the bottle through an adhesive (Clark, col. 6, ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the mechanism for activating the discharge valve includes a stem (Dyer 444) integrated into the body that is configured to open the discharge valve when the bottle is inserted into the body.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the rigid hose guide (Dyer, clip in Fig. 2) partially envelops the flexible exit hose.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 1, wherein the flexible exit hose is at least partially enveloped by a rigid hose guide (Dyer, clip in Fig. 2).
Claims(s) 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Ribbe.
Regarding claim 15, Dyer teaches a mop system, comprising: a shaft (14) having a first end and a second end; a handle (at 16) coupled to the first end of the shaft, the handle comprising: a first end; a second end opposite the first end and coupled to the first end of the shaft; and an actuator (37) disposed adjacent the second end; a head (12) releasably coupled to the second end of the shaft, the head further comprising: a revolving mechanism (50) coupled to the shaft, and a bottom surface.
Dyer does not teach a body disposed on the shaft, the body further comprising: a removable bottle comprising: a first end having a lid, and a second end having a discharge valve; and a mechanism for activating the discharge valve of the removable bottle.
Ribbe teaches a body (450) disposed on the shaft, the body further comprising: a removable bottle (410) comprising: a first end having a lid (412), a second end having a discharge valve (420), and a mechanism (430) for activating the discharge valve of the removable bottle.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Dyer with a body disposed on the shaft, the body further comprising: a removable bottle comprising: a first end having a lid, a second end having a discharge valve, and mechanism for activating the discharge valve of the removable bottle as taught by Ribbe, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of simple substitution of one known reservoir for another with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dyer and Ribbe teaches the mop system according to claim 15, wherein the actuator is disposed in the handle (Dyer, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dyer and Ribbe teaches the mop system according to claim 15, wherein the revolving mechanism is coupled to the shaft with a release clip (Dyer, 59).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dyer and Ribbe teaches the mop system according to claim 15, wherein the body comprises a flexible exit hose (Dyer 24) that is in fluid communication with the bottle and is at least partially enveloped by a rigid hose guide (Dyer, clip in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer and Ribbe as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Clark.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dyer and Ribbe teaches the mop system according to claim 15, but does not teach that the removable bottle comprises a grip cover.
Clark teaches a grip cover (112).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a grip cover as taught by Clark for the purpose of creating friction between the bottle and a user’s hand (Clark, col. 5, ll. 47-50).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 18, wherein the grip cover is press fit onto the bottle (Clark, col. 6, ll. 1-4).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Huang (US 6497525).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dyer, Ribbe, and Clark teaches the mop system according to claim 11, but does not teach that the mechanism for activating the discharge valve includes an elongate member which is urged by the pivoting of the actuator when activated to open a valve, thereby facilitating fluid communication between the bottle and the flexible exit hose.
Huang teaches a mechanism for activating a discharge valve (42) includes an elongate member (36) which is urged by the pivoting of an actuator (12) when activated to open a valve, thereby facilitating fluid communication between a bottle (40) and a flexible exit hose (47).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Dyer such that the mechanism for activating the discharge valve includes an elongate member which is urged by the pivoting of the actuator when activated to open a valve, thereby facilitating fluid communication between the bottle and the flexible exit hose, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of simple substitution of one known flow control means for another with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754