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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “for handle connection” should be “for a handle connection”.
Claim 1 recites “and floor brush” should be “and the floor brush”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the top of the crevice brush". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a top of the crevice brush”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interior of the floor brush". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “an interior of the floor brush”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top of floor brush". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a top of the floor brush”.
Claim 2 recites “on both sides” it is unclear to the examiner which sides applicant intends. Is it the top, bottom, left, right, front, or back? For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as any combination of these sides.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the inner walls of the connection groove". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as "inner walls of the connection groove".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the quantity of the fixing knobs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends to reference back to “a fixing knob” in claim 1 or if applicant intends for this to be a new structure. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets “a fixing knob” in claim 1 as “at least one fixing knob”.
Claim 3 recites “they”. It is unclear to what this is referring to the sides or the locking slots or the fixing knobs. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the two fixing knobs.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bottom of the fixing knobs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as "a bottom of the fixing knobs".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rotation angle of the fixing knob". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as "a rotation angle of the fixing knob".
Claim 5 recites the limitation “one side of the limiting plate” and “the rotational direction of the fixing knob”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended to have the claim be dependent upon claim 4 or if applicant intended for these to be new limitations. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as dependent upon claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the interior of the threaded head". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as "an interior of the threaded head".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the top end of the positioning pin". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as "a top end of the at least one positioning pin".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the interior of the adjustment slot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as "an interior of the at least one adjustment slot".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the interior of the crevice brush". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as "an interior of the crevice brush".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the top end of the screw rod". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended for the limitation to be in reference to one end of the screw rod or a new limitation. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the one end of the screw rod”.
Claim 6 and 9 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (2004/0031116) in view of Wilson (1,519,181).
Regarding Claim 1, Coleman teaches A dual-function floor cleaning brush (Fig. 4a), wherein comprises:
a crevice brush (Ref. 2&7, Fig. 1); and the top of the crevice brush (See annotated Fig. 1) is provided with a threaded head (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) for handle connection (Ref. 13, Fig. 1);
a floor brush (Ref. 34, Fig. 4a); and the interior of the floor brush (See annotated Fig. 4a below) is provided with a connection groove (Ref. 35, Fig. 4a) for embedding the crevice brush (2), to combine the crevice brush (2) and floor brush (34) into a single entity (Fig. 4a, [0023]); and the top of floor brush (See annotated Fig. 4a below) provided for housing the crevice brush (Fig. 4a).
Coleman fails to explicitly teach the top of the floor brush is moveably provided with a fixing knob for clamping the crevice brush. Wilson teaches a floor brush and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Wilson further teaches a top surface of a floor brush (Fig. 1 shows the top surface) is movably provided with a fixing knob (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) for clamping two elements of the brush together (Fig. 1, [Pg. 1, Lines 105-112]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top surface of the floor brush, as taught by Coleman, with the rotatably fixing knob, as taught by Wilson, to securely attach the crevice brush and floor brush preventing accidental displacement ([pg. 1, Line 107-108]).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Coleman as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Coleman further teaches the top of the crevice brush (2) is provided with at least one positioning pin (Ref. 5, fig. 1), the interior of the threaded head (4) is provided with at least one adjustment slot (Ref. 6, Fig. 1), and the top end of the positioning pin (Fig. 1 annotated below) extends into the interior of the adjustment slot (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
466
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Coleman as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Coleman further teaches wherein further comprises a screw rod (Ref. 5, Fig. 1); one end of the screw rod (See annotated Fig. 1 below) penetrates the threaded head (4) and is internally threaded with the interior of the crevice brush (Ref. 7, Fig. 1), and the top end of the screw rod (5) is provided with a turning knob (Ref. 11, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
466
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davidshofer (2015/0089757).
Regarding Claim 2, Coleman as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the crevice brush is provided with positioning slots on both sides, the inner walls of the connection groove on both sides are provided with positioning blocks, and the positioning slots engaged with the positioning blocks as the crevice brush is embedded into the interior of the connection groove. Davidshofer teaches a floor cleaning tool and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Davidshofer teaches a floor cleaner (Fig. 2) with a crevice brush (Ref. 132, Fig. 2) is provided with positioning slots (Ref. 210, Fig. 2) on both sides (Fig. 2), the inner walls of the connection groove (Ref. 130, Fig. 2) on both sides are provided with positioning blocks (Ref. 208, fig. 2), and the positioning slots (210) engage with the positioning blocks (208) as the crevice brush is embedded into the interior of the connection groove ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the crevice brush and connection groove, as taught by Colemans as modified, with positioning blocks and connection groove, as taught by Davidshofer, to releasably detach one position to the other and ensure proper connection and locking of the two parts together ([0029]).
Regarding Claim 9, Coleman as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the tops of the crevice brush and the floor brush are mutually abutting arc surfaces. Davidshofer teaches a floor cleaning tool and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Davidshofer teaches a floor cleaner (Fig. 2) with a crevice brush (Ref. 132, Fig. 2) and floor brush (Ref. 102, Fig. 2) are mutually abutting arc surfaces (note examiner interprets mutually abutting arc surfaces are any curved surfaces that are abutting one another, Fig. 2 shows arced edges). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the abutting surfaces of the floor brush and crevice brush, as taught by Coleman as modified, with arc surfaces, as taught by Davidshofer, to achieve the predictable result of having the top surfaces crevice brush and floor brush abut one another.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roy (7,272,903).
Regarding Claim 3, Coleman as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Coleman further teaches wherein both sides of the top of the crevice brush (See annotated Fig. 4a below) are adjacent to both sides of the connection groove (See annotated Fig. 4a below). Coleman fails to explicitly teach locking slots, and two fixing knobs. Roy teaches a fixing knob and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to connect two pieces together and prevent disconnection. Roy teaches locking slots (Ref. 138, Fig. 6A), the quantity of the fixing knobs (19) is two (Fig. 1 shows at least 2 fixing knobs), and the bottom of the fixing knobs is provided with locking blocks (Ref. 124, Fig. 6A) that engage with the locking slots ([Col. 3, Line 34-37]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fixing knob and floor brush, as taught by Colemans as modified, to have two fixing knobs with locking slots and locking blocks, as taught by Roy, by duplication of parts and to prevent the fixing knob from accidental dislodgement ([Col. 3, Line 40-48])
PNG
media_image4.png
641
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Coleman as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the top of the floor brush is provided with a limiting plate fixed on one side of the fixing knob to restrict the rotation angle of the fixing knob. Roy teaches a fixing knob and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to connect two pieces together and prevent disconnection. Roy teaches a limiting plate (Ref. 106, Fig. 6a) fixed on one side of the fixing knob (Fig. 6A shows the limiting placed fixed on the bottom side), to restrict the rotation angle of the fixing knob (Ref. 124, Fig. 6a restricts the rotation angle by restricting movement, [Col. 3, Line 40]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top of the floor brush, as taught by Coleman as modified, with a limiting plate fixed on one side of the fixing knob, as taught by Roy, to prevent the fixing knob from accidental dislodgement ([Col. 3, Line 40-48]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman as modified as applied to claim 4 above, based upon 35 USC 112b, and further in view of Strahs (4,524,938).
Regarding Claim 5, as interpreted under the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, examiner has interpreted the claim as dependent upon claim 4, Coleman as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the top of the floor brush on one side of the limiting plate is also provided with a direction mark for identifying the rotation direction of the fixing knob. Strahs teaches a floor cleaning tool and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Strahs further teaches a direction mark (Ref. 66, Fig. 2) for identifying the direction intended for parts of the cleaning brush to move (Fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top the floor brush on one side of the limiting plate, as taught by Coleman as modified, to have a direction mark for identifying the rotation direction of the fixing knob, as taught by Strahs, to allow the user to clearly identify how the fixing knobs are used since such a modification would produce the predictable result of rotating the fixing knob.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balz (2016/0207190).
Regarding Claim 6, Colemans as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, Wilson further teaches wherein one side of the floor brush (Fig. 2 top surface of the floor brush) is provided with a scraper (Ref. 16, fig. 2, [Pg. 2, Lines 11-17]) via a slot (Fig. 2 shows the squilgee in the slot). Coleman fails to explicitly teach the scraper and slot are rubber coated. Balz teaches a floor cleaning brush and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Balz teaches a scraper and its housing/slot being made of rubber ([0106]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the material of the scraper, as taught by Coleman as modified, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of scraping materials from the floor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen (2007/0130713) and Hisey (5,517,710) teaches floor cleaner brushes and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723