Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 2-4-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
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
2. 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 13-15 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 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. As detailed in the last office action dated 11-4-25, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the claimed first latch mechanism and applicant’s originally filed disclosure details that the first latch mechanism of the drain cleaner may include other suitable latch mechanisms for the first latch mechanism, and this renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to what other types of latch mechanisms are being contemplated by the claim as related to the first latch mechanism.
Claim 14 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. As detailed in the last office action dated 11-4-25, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the claimed second latch mechanism and applicant’s originally filed disclosure details the second latch mechanism of the drain cleaner may include other suitable latch mechanisms for the second latch mechanism, and this renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to what other types of latch mechanisms are being contemplated by the claim as related to the second latch mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10.501927 to Pleasants in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0326219 to Kinoshita et al.
Referring to claim 1, Pleasants discloses a drain cleaner comprising, a housing – at 14,26, having an interior – see figures 1-4, a cover – at 30, coupled to the housing – at 14, over the interior – see figures 1-4, a nose assembly – at 62, extending forwardly from the cover – at 30 – see figures 1-4, to define a first grip – see outer surface of 62 capable of being gripped as seen in figures 1-4, a handle assembly – at 42, extending rearwardly from the housing – at 14, and including a second grip – see figures 1-4, a motor – in 34, positioned within the housing – see figures 1-4 and column 2 lines 51-67, the motor defining a rotation axis – see at 34 in figures 1-4, a drum – at 18, positioned within the interior – see figure 2, the drum – a 18, operable to be rotated by the motor relative to the housing – see figures 1-4, a flexible cable – at 22, stored within the drum – at 18 – see figures 1-4 and column 2 lines 40-50, the flexible cable – at 22, configured to be extended out of the drum and into a drain – see figures 1-4, and an auxiliary handle – at 66, extending from the cover – at 30, and including a third grip – see at 66 in figures 1-4, the auxiliary handle – at 66, defining an opening – see openings for receiving fasteners to connect to two halves of 26 together in figures 5-8 between the third grip – front of 66, and the cover – at 30 – see figures 1-4. Pleasants does not disclose the auxiliary handle defining an opening through which a user can insert a hand and grasp the auxiliary handle. Kinoshita et al. does disclose a handheld tool having multiple handles and grips – at 231h, 232h and 233h as seen in figure 12, including an auxiliary handle – at 232h or 233h, defining an opening – see figure 12, through which a user can insert a hand and grasp the auxiliary handle – at 232h or 233h – see figure 12. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants and add the auxiliary handle with opening for grasping by the user as disclosed by Kinoshita et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for a more secure gripping of the auxiliary handle in that the user can wrap their finger’s about the handle during use as desired.
Referring to claim 3, Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. does not disclose the auxiliary handle extends away from the cover at an angle between 30 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the rotation axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. and have the auxiliary handle extend from the cover at any desired angle including the claimed 30 to 60 degree angles, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to more easily grasp and hold the device during use. Further, it is noted that applicant has not placed any criticality on the angle being 30 to 60 degrees as seen in paragraph [0028] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Referring to claim 4, Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. further discloses the handle assembly includes a stand – at 46, positioned beneath a center of gravity of the drain cleaner – see figures 1-4 of Pleasants.
Referring to claim 5, Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. further discloses the handle assembly includes a battery receptacle configured to receive a battery pack – see at 38 in figures 1-4 of Pleasants.
Referring to claim 6, Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. further discloses the third grip has a length – see front wall of 66, that extends substantially perpendicular to the rotation axis – see figures 1-4 of Pleasants. Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. does not disclose the third grip has a length that is perpendicular to the rotation axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. and add the third grip having a length perpendicular to the rotation axis as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to more easily grasp and hold the device during use.
Referring to claim 7, Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. further discloses the auxiliary handle – at 66, includes two flanges – at the rear of item 66 at the top and bottom of 66, extending from ends of the third grip – at 66, and coupled to opposing sides of the cover – at 30 – see figures 1-6 of Pleasants.
Referring to claim 8, Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. further discloses the auxiliary handle is tubular – see hollow interior of 66 in figures 4-6 of Pleasants, but does not disclose the auxiliary handle is cylindrical. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. and have the auxiliary handle in any desired shape including the claimed cylindrical shape, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to more easily grasp and hold the device during use.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0229729 to Banholzer et al.
Referring to claim 2, Pleasants as modified by Kinohsita et al. does not disclose the auxiliary handle is removably coupled to the cover. Banholzer et al. does disclose the auxiliary handle – at 84, is removably coupled to the cover – at 32B – see via 88 in figures 1-3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. and add the auxiliary handle being removable from the cover as disclosed by Banholzer et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the components inside the device to be accessed for cleaning and maintenance.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,851,868 to Cole et al.
Referring to claim 9, Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. further discloses the cover – at 30, is pivotably coupled to the housing – at 26 – see figure 3 of Pleasants, and moveable between a closed position, in which the drum – at 18, is partially enclosed within the interior – see figures 1-2 of Pleasants, with the drum at least partially enclosed via items 14,26,30, and an open position, in which the drum is accessible – see figure 3 of Pleasants. Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. does not disclose the drum is fully enclosed within the interior of the housing in the closed position. Cole et al. does disclose the drum – at 25, is fully enclosed within the interior of the housing – at 50, in the closed position – see figure 1 and column 4 lines 33-57. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Kinoshita et al. and add the drum enclosed within the interior of the housing in the closed position as disclosed by Cole et al., so as to yield the predictable result of better protecting the drum from damage during use as desired.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasants in view of Cole et al.
Referring to claim 10, Pleasants discloses a drain cleaner comprising, a housing – at 14,26, having an interior – see figures 1-4, a cover – at 30, coupled to the housing – at 14, over the interior – see figures 1-4, a nose assembly – at 62, extending forwardly from the cover – at 30 – see figures 1-4, to define a first grip – see outer surface of 62 capable of being gripped as seen in figures 1-4, a handle assembly – at 42, extending rearwardly from the housing – at 14, and including a second grip – see figures 1-4, a motor – in 34, positioned within the housing – see figures 1-4 and column 2 lines 51-67, the motor defining a rotation axis – see at 34 in figures 1-4, a drum – at 18, positioned within the interior – see figure 2, the drum – a 18, operable to be rotated by the motor relative to the housing – see figures 1-4, a flexible cable – at 22, stored within the drum – at 18 – see figures 1-4 and column 2 lines 40-50, the flexible cable – at 22, configured to be extended out of the drum and into a drain – see figures 1-4, and an auxiliary handle – at 66, extending from the cover – at 30, and including a third grip – see at 66 in figures 1-4, the auxiliary handle – at 66, defining an opening – see openings for receiving fasteners to connect to two halves of 26 together in figures 5-8 between the third grip – front of 66, and the cover – at 30 – see figures 1-4. Pleasants further discloses the cover – at 30, is pivotably coupled to the housing – at 26 – see figure 3 of Pleasants, and moveable between a closed position, in which the drum – at 18, is partially enclosed within the interior – see figures 1-2 of Pleasants, with the drum at least partially enclosed via items 14,26,30, and an open position, in which the drum is accessible – see figure 3 of Pleasants. Pleasants does not disclose the drum is fully enclosed within the interior of the housing in the closed position. Cole et al. does disclose the drum – at 25, is fully enclosed within the interior of the housing – at 50, in the closed position – see figure 1 and column 4 lines 33-57. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants and add the drum enclosed within the interior of the housing in the closed position as disclosed by Cole et al., so as to yield the predictable result of better protecting the drum from damage during use as desired.
Referring to claim 11, Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. further discloses when the cover – at 30, is in the open position, the drum – at 18, is removable from the interior of the housing – see figure 3 of Pleasants.
Referring to claim 13, Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. further disclose a first latch mechanism – at 74,110,114, coupled to the housing – at 26, and the cover – at 30 – see figures 1-10 of Pleasants, wherein the first latch mechanism – at 74,110,114, is moveable from a first position, in which the cover – at 30, is secured to the housing – at 26, and a second position, in which the cover – at 30, is able to move between the open and closed positions – see figures 1-10 and column 4 line 19 to column 6 line 57 of Pleasants. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first latch mechanism items 110,114 of Pleasants are an actuator and clasp and therefore consistent with applicant’s disclosed first latch mechanism.
Referring to claim 14, Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. further discloses a second latch mechanism – other of 74,110,114 – see items 110,114 on each side of the device in figure 12 of Pleasants, coupled to the housing – at 26, and the cover – at 30, wherein the second latch mechanism – at 110,114, is moveable between a first position, in which, the cover – at 30, is not pivotable relative to the housing – see figures 1-2 of Pleasants, and a second position, in which the cover – at 30, is pivotable between the open and closed positions – see figure 3 of Pleasants. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second latch mechanism, items 110,114 of Pleasants are an actuator and buckle and rib and therefore consistent with applicant’s disclosed second latch mechanism.
Referring to claim 15, Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. further discloses the first and second latch mechanisms are positioned on opposite sides of the housing from one another- see at 110,114 in figure 12 of Pleasants.
Referring to claim 16, Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. further discloses the cover – at 30, is pivotable about an axis that is transverse to the rotation axis – see – at 30 in figures 1-4 of Pleasants.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0229729 to Banholzer et al.
Referring to claim 12, Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. does not disclose the drum is supported by an inner cone within the interior of the housing. Banholzer et al. does disclose the drum – at 32, is supported by an inner cone – at 32a, within the interior of the housing – see figure 4a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Cole et al. and add the inner cone support of Banholzer et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper extension and retraction of the cable during use.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasants in view of U.S. Patent No. 2023/0182281 to Keller and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,884,353 to Banholzer et al.
Referring to claim 17, Pleasants discloses a system comprising a drain cleaner – at 10, including, a housing – at 14,26, a motor – in 34, positioned within the housing – see figures 1-4, a handle assembly – at 42, extending from the housing – see figures 1-4, the handle assembly – at 42, including a stand – at 46, with an opening – see open interior of 46 in figure 3, the opening configured to receive an object such as a cleat – see at 46 in figure 3, to connect the drain cleaner to an object – see figure 3, a drum – at 18, positioned within the housing – see figures 1-4, the drum – at 18, operable to be rotated by the motor – in item 34, relative to the housing – at 14 – see figures 1-4, and a flexible cable – at 22, stored within the drum – see figures 1-4, the flexible cable – at 22, configured to be extended out of the drum and into a drain – see figures 1-4. Pleasants does not disclose an organization system including a cleat connecting the stand to the organization system. Keller does disclose an organization system including a cleat – at 16, 50-58, connecting the stand – at 70, to the organization system – at 10 – see figures 1-3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants and add the organization system of Keller, so as to yield the predictable result of facilitating storage of the device when not in use. Pleasants as modified by Keller further discloses the handle assembly – at 42, including a battery receptacle – at 38, and a stand – at 46, the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery pack – see figures 2-4 and column 3 lines 8-16 of Pleasants. Pleasants as modified by Keller does not disclose the stand being spaced from the battery receptacle. Banholzer et al. ‘353 does disclose a handle assembly – at 24, having a stand – at 64, spaced from a battery receptacle – at 60 – see figures 1-4a. Therefore it would have been obvious to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Keller which discloses a stand having an opening and add the stand being spaced from the battery receptacle as disclosed by Banholzer ‘553 which would space the opening of Pleasants from the battery receptacle, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to more easily access the opening in the stand in that the battery would be disposed further from the stand opening.
Referring to claim 18, Pleasants as modified by Keller and Banholzer et al. ‘553 does not disclose the cleat is diamond shaped. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Keller and Banholzer et al. ‘553 and make the cleat any desired shape including the claimed diamond shape, so as to yield the predictable result of removably securing the device to the organization system as desired. Further, it is noted that applicant has not placed any criticality on the cleat being diamond shaped as seen in paragraphs [0038]-[0039] of applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 19, Pleasants as modified by Keller and Banholzer et al. ‘553 further discloses the organization system includes a rail – at 14, configured to be mounted to a wall – see at 26-32, and wherein the cleat – at 16, extends from the rail – at 14 – see figures 1-3 of Keller. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Keller and Banholzer et al. ‘553 and add the organization system of Keller, so as to yield the predictable result of facilitating storage of the device when not in use.
Referring to claim 20, Pleasants as modified by Keller and Banholzer et al. ‘553 further discloses the cleat is a first cleat – see at 16 in figures 1-3 of Keller, but does not disclose wherein the organization system further includes a second cleat. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Pleasants as modified by Keller and Banholzer et al. ‘553 and duplicate parts to add a second cleat as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for multiple objects to be supported by the organization system during use.
Response to Arguments
4. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 13 and 14, the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder term similar to the term means as seen in MPEP section 2181 and each of claims 13 and 14 claims functional language related to the latch mechanisms being the securing/pivoting of the cover and therefore applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed latch mechanisms. Further, as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure it is detailed that the latch mechanisms can have other suitable structure different than the actuator and wire disclosed but there is no specific details to what this other structure encompasses and the term latch is not a term in the art that implies a specific structure in that it only implies two components engage to lock and unlock movement of a separate component attached to the latching components and the components forming the latch are not specific to one specific structure. Therefore it is unclear to what other latching components encompass the claimed latch mechanisms when taking into account the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis. It is recommended that applicant remove the term “mechanism” and “mechanisms” from each of claims 13, 14 and 15 to overcome these rejections.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-4-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claim 1 detailed in the last office action date 11-4-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 2-4-26 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-9, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 1 discussed earlier.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-4-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claim 10 detailed in the last office action dated 11-4-25. However, applicants’ claim amendments dated 2-4-26 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 11-16, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 10 discussed earlier.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-4-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 17 detailed in the last office action dated 11-4-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 2-4-26 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action. Further, the Keller reference US 2023/0182281 is not used to disclose the opening in the stand in that the Pleasants reference US 10501927 is used to disclose these claim limitation as detailed in the last office action dated 11-4-25 and as detailed in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 18-20, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 17 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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