The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendments filed February 17, 2026. Claim 13 was amended.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sport cleaner apparatus” in Claims 1-20, “fluid delivery system” in Claims 1, 13, 14, and 16, and “fluid recovery system” in Claims 1, 13, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(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.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luyckx US 2023/0200612 (hereafter Luyckx).
Regarding Amended Claim 13, Luyckx anticipates:
13. (Currently Amended) A spot cleaner apparatus (extraction cleaner 10) comprising:
a main housing (assembly comprising main housing 12 and base 38) having a common port (hose 32 connection to base 38 shown in Figure 2);
hosing (hose 32 with an internal fluid conduit, Paragraph [0042]) having a proximal end (end of hose 32 coupled to base 38 as shown in Figure 2) coupled to the main housing and a distal end (end of hose 32 coupled to cleaning tool 22, Figure 2)(Paragraph [0042]);
a cleaning head (cleaning tool 22) coupled to the distal end of the hosing (Figure 2);
a fluid delivery system (fluid delivery system 14) comprising a clean fluid tank (supply tank 18) receivable on the main housing of the spot cleaner apparatus, and a pump assembly (pump 24) fluidly coupling the clean fluid tank to the cleaning head via the hosing to deliver a cleaning fluid stored in the clean fluid tank via a fluid-ejecting orifice (spray tip of fluid distributor 20, Paragraphs [0041] and [0082]) in the cleaning head (Figure 2); and
a fluid recovery system (fluid recovery system 16) comprising a dirty fluid tank (recovery tank 30) receivable on the main housing and a vacuum assembly (motor/fan assembly 34) fluidly coupling the dirty fluid tank to the cleaning head via the hosing to draw a vacuum airflow from one or more vacuum inlets (extraction nozzle 28) in the cleaning head through an integrated liquid/air separator (air/liquid separator assembly 60 – integrated to mount to the bottom, and inside of recovery tank 30, Figure 3) in the dirty fluid tank (Paragraph [0051]),
wherein the clean fluid tank and the dirty fluid tank are fluidly coupled to the hosing via the proximal end of the hosing (end of hose 32 coupled to base 38 as shown in Figure 2), and
wherein the hosing includes a partitioned hose (hose 32 with internal suction path and an internal fluid conduit for supplying fluid to the fluid distributor 20, Paragraph [0042]) coupled to the main housing at the common port (hose 32 connection to base 38 shown in Figure 2) and the cleaning head is fluidly coupled to the main housing via the partitioned hose configured to simultaneously deliver the cleaning fluid, through the common port, from the clean fluid tank to the cleaning head (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0042]) and draw airflow, through the common port, from the cleaning head towards the dirty fluid tank (Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 14, Luyckx anticipates:
14. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 13, wherein the fluid delivery system further comprises a fluid heater (heater, Paragraph [0041]) configured to heat the cleaning fluid before delivery via the cleaning head (cleaning tool 22).
Regarding Claim 17, Luyckx anticipates:
17. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 13, wherein the clean fluid tank (supply tank 18) is non-removably received (received for installation and locked by first latch 80 to be non-removable, Paragraph [0054]) on the main housing (main housing 12).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luyckx US 2023/0200612 (hereafter Luyckx) in view of design choice and modifying separate elements to be integral.
Regarding Claim 16, Luyckx teaches:
16. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 13, further comprising a control panel (panel area with main power switch 42 which controls power and task light, Paragraph [0069]) on an outside surface (Figure 2) of the main housing (main housing 12), the control panel operatively connected (provides user input to activate desired power state) to a printed circuit board (see discussion below) configured to control one or more operations of the fluid delivery system (fluid delivery system 14) and the fluid recovery system (fluid recovery system 16).
Luyckx discloses a device that includes a flow control system with a flow control valve, controlled illumination controlled by a main power switch 42 configured to control a supply of power from the power source to the motor/fan assembly; pump, flow control valve, and a task light power switch configured to control a supply of power from the power source to the various devices. Luyckx additionally discloses an actuator can be operably coupled to the pump 24 such that pressing the actuator will activate the pump 24, or can be operably coupled to a flow control valve which controls the delivery of fluid from the pump 24 to the distributor 20 such that pressing the actuator will open the valve. Luyckx does not disclose that the device includes a printed circuit board that is connected to the main power switch 42 and actuator that is configured to control operation of the pump and flow control valve of the fluid delivery system 14. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a printed circuit board as a central connection point for the component wiring and appropriate circuitry for controlling power to the device, including the fluid delivery system as claimed, since a printed circuit board, in even the simplest form with a terminal block that combines/routes wiring connections, is a common prior art solution for providing device control. One would be motivated to employ a printed circuit board to reduce wiring complexity and provide obvious control electronics that would enhance the operation and intelligence of the device.
Regarding Claim 18, Luyckx teaches:
18. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 13, wherein the integrated liquid/air separator (air/liquid separator assembly 60 – integrated to mount to the bottom, and inside of recovery tank 30, Figure 3) includes a pair of separator tubes (inlet conduit 66 and outlet conduit 68) integrally formed in (see discussion below) and projecting from a bottom wall (air/liquid separator assembly 60 forms the bottom of the recovery tank 30 when assembled, Paragraphs [0051] and [0052]) of the dirty fluid tank (recovery tank 30), a first (inlet conduit 66, Paragraph [0051]) of the pair of separator tubes in fluid communication with the cleaning head (cleaning tool 22) and a second (outlet conduit 68, Paragraph [0051]) of the pair of separator tubes in fluid communication with the vacuum assembly (motor/fan assembly 34).
Luyckx discloses an air/liquid separator assembly 60 integrated to mount to the bottom, and inside of recovery tank 30 as shown in Figure 3 and discussed in Paragraphs [0051] and [0052]). As shown in Figure 3, the air/liquid separator assembly forms the bottom wall of the recovery tank 30 when assembled. Luyckx discloses that the inlet conduit 66 and outlet conduit 68 are part of the air/liquid separator assembly. Unfortunately, Luyckx does not provide a drawing or disclosure that positively shows that the inlet conduit 66 and outlet conduit 68 are integrally formed with the bottom wall of the air/liquid separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the inlet conduit 66 and outlet conduit 68 as shown in Figure 3 integrally with the bottom wall, with the motivation to reduce the number of parts in the assembly, which makes it easier to be assemble by commercial users, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding Claim 19, Luyckx teaches:
19. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 13, wherein the clean fluid tank (supply tank 18) includes a clean fluid tank base (bottom of clean fluid tank with valve 86) with a gasket extending about an upper end of the clean fluid tank (see discussion below) and a clean fluid tank lid (elastic fill cover shown in Figures 3 and 4) removably mounted to the upper end of the clean fluid tank base (shown in Figures 3 and 4).
Luyckx discloses a valve 86 that provides a coupling between the supply tank 18 and valve seat 84 leading to pump 24. Luyckx does not disclose a gasket extending about the upper end of the valve. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a gasket at the location of the removable coupling with the motivation to seal the coupling to prevent leakage since gaskets are a common solution to creating a watertight seal.
Regarding Claim 20, Luyckx teaches:
20. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 13, wherein the fluid-ejecting orifice (spray tip of fluid distributor 20, Paragraphs [0041] and [0082]) in the cleaning head (cleaning tool 22) is a fluid nebulizer configured to disperse the cleaning fluid in a mist-like fashion (Paragraph [0082] - a spray tip configured to distribute cleaning fluid in a pressurized fan-shaped spray pattern downwardly onto the surface).
Luyckx discloses in Paragraph [0082], a spray tip configured with an orifice to distribute cleaning fluid in a pressurized fan-shaped spray pattern downwardly onto a carpeted surface. Luyckx does not disclose that the spray patterned includes a separate fluid nebulizer device. In the Applicant’s specification, he provides a definition of nebulized. “By nebulized, it is intended that the cleaning fluid exits the orifice 1055 appearing like a mixture of liquid and mist in a spray bottle-like fashion. In some embodiments, orifice 1055 may thus be referred to as a fluid nebulizer.” Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the spray tip of the fluid distributor 20 taught by Luyckx is an orifice, that produces a pressurized fan-shaped spray pattern of a mixture of liquid and mist in a spray bottle-like fashion, that teaches the fluid nebulizer as claimed using the Applicant’s definition.
As previously presented, Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mainini et al. US 2018/0103611 (hereafter Mainini et al.) in view of Stoltz et al. US 4,974,282 (hereafter Stoltz et al.) and design choice.
Regarding Claim 1, Mainini et al. teaches:
1. (Previously Presented) A spot cleaner apparatus (pet hydro washer, structurally a lower noise carpet cleaner device) comprising:
a main housing (central housing 110);
at least one hose (assembly comprising water delivery line 180 and suction hose 128) having a proximal end coupled to the main housing (at vacuum entrance port 140) and a distal end (at wand 130);
a cleaning head (wand 130) coupled to the distal end of the hose (Figure 1);
a fluid delivery system including
a clean fluid tank (clean water storage tank 112) configured for holding a cleaning fluid,
a fluid-nebulizing orifice (nozzle 182, Figure 6, see discussion below) in the cleaning head (Figure 2), and fluidly coupled via the hose to the clean fluid tank and configured to receive cleaning fluid therefrom, the fluid-nebulizing orifice configured to dispense the cleaning fluid in a mist-like fashion,
a pump assembly (liquid pump 178) fluidly coupling the clean fluid tank to the cleaning head via the hose and configured to pump cleaning fluid from the clean fluid tank to the fluid-nebulizing orifice (Figure 2), and
a fluid heater (see discussion below) configured to heat the cleaning fluid at or between the clean fluid tank and the fluid-nebulizing orifice;
a fluid recovery system including
one or more vacuum inlets (vacuum intake at attachment head 132, Figure 2) in the cleaning head,
a dirty fluid tank (dirty water storage tank 114) including an integrated liquid/air separator (riser tube 144), the integrated liquid/air separator including one (one) or more separator tubes integrally formed in and projecting from a bottom wall of the dirty fluid tank (Figure 2, see discussion below), and
a vacuum assembly (airflow inducing motor 152 and impeller 154) configured for drawing a vacuum flow from one or more vacuum inlets in the cleaning head through the integrated liquid/air separator via the hose in the dirty fluid tank (Figure 2),
wherein the clean fluid tank (through water delivery line 180 of hose) and the dirty fluid tank (through suction hose 128 of hose) are fluidly coupled to the hose via the proximal end of the hose (Figure 2).
Fluid-nebulizing orifice is defined as an orifice that will receive a liquid and “reduce it to a fine spray” as defined by Merriam-Webster. In the Applicant’s specification, he provides a definition of nebulized. “By nebulized, it is intended that the cleaning fluid exits the orifice 1055 appearing like a mixture of liquid and mist in a spray bottle-like fashion. In some embodiments, orifice 1055 may thus be referred to as a fluid nebulizer.” In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the disclosed nozzle 182 will receive fluid from the water delivery line 180 and reduce it to a fine spray, as shown in Figure 6, that is spread over a larger area. Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret the nozzle 182 as a fluid-nebulizing orifice as claimed.
Mainini et al. discloses in Paragraph [0041] the use of warm water in the clean water storage tank 112, however, he does not describe the use of a fluid heater. The reference Stoltz et al. discloses the use of a fluid heater (heat exchanger 36) configured to heat the cleaning fluid (cleaning solution 14) at or between the clean fluid tank (tank 26) and the fluid-nebulizing orifice (on cleaning tool 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mainini et al. reference to include a fluid heater as taught by Stoltz et al. configured to heat the cleaning fluid at or between the clean fluid tank and the fluid-nebulizing orifice with the motivation to create the warm water on the device rather than requiring warm water to be freshly added to the cleaning fluid tank.
Mainini et al. discloses in Paragraph [0034] a removable dirty water storage tank 114 comprising a riser tube 144 connected to an internal conduit 142 and air return conduit 146 connected to a stationary air return conduit 148. Figure 2 shows the location of the connection. Therefore, it appears that Mainini et al. discloses that the dirty water storage tank 114 is collectively removed with the riser tube 144 and air return conduit 146. Mainini et al. does not disclose that the riser tube 144 and air return conduit 146 are removable from the dirty water storage tank 114, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the riser tube 144 and air return conduit 146 are integrally mounted to the dirty water storage tank 114 with the motivation to create a permanent leakproof seal therebetween. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the riser tube 144 and air return conduit 146 integral to the dirty water storage tank 114, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding Claim 2, Mainini et al. teaches:
2. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the fluid heater (added to Mainini et al. device to create warm water) is configured for heating the cleaning fluid to a temperature below the boiling point of the cleaning fluid (see discussion below).
Neither Mainini et al. nor Stoltz et al. disclose a temperature for the heated cleaning solution. It would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the maximum water temperature to prevent scalding is 600C (1400F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a temperature that would not burn the user during operation.
Regarding Claim 3, Mainini et al. teaches:
3. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 2, wherein the fluid heater is configured for heating the cleaning fluid to a temperature of about 60 degrees Celsius (see discussion below).
Neither Mainini et al. nor Stoltz et al. disclose a temperature for the heated cleaning solution. It would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the maximum water temperature to prevent scalding is 600C (1400F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a temperature near 600C (1400F) that would not burn the user during operation.
Regarding Claim 4, Mainini et al. teaches:
4. (Previously Presented) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the clean fluid tank (clean water storage tank 112) is non-removably received (see discussion below) on the main housing (central housing 110).
Mainini et al. discloses a removable clean water storage tank 112 on a device shown in Figure 1 that looks less portable than traditional carpet cleaning devices. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the clean water storage tank 112 non-removable and provide a fixed water supply to the tank with the motivation to prevent the user from being required to lift the clean water storage tank, carry it to the water supply, and carry a full water storage tank back to the device in a operational scenario where the carpet is an area rug that can be portable and moved to the device for cleaning.
Regarding Claim 5, Mainini et al. teaches:
5. (Previously Presented) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the integrated liquid/air separator includes a pair (riser tube 144 and air return conduit 146) of the one or more separator tubes, a first of the pair of the one or more separator tubes (riser tube 144) in fluid communication with the cleaning head (wand 130) and a second of the pair of the one or more separator tubes (air return conduit 146) in fluid communication with the vacuum assembly (airflow inducing motor 152 and impeller 154).
Regarding Claim 6, Mainini et al. teaches:
6. (Previously Presented) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 5, wherein the first of the pair of the one or more separator tubes (riser tube 144) includes a check valve configured to prevent backflow into an inlet of the first of the pair of the one or more separator tubes (Paragraph [0032]), and the second of the pair of the one or more separator tubes (air return conduit 146) includes a float configured to prevent rising fluid in the dirty fluid tank (dirty water storage tank 114) from entering into the second of the pair of the one or more separator tubes.
Regarding Claim 7, Mainini et al. teaches:
7. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the cleaning head (wand 130) includes a plurality of side-by-side of the one or more vacuum inlets (intake into suction hose 128) disposed adjacent a plurality of brushes (attachment head 134 with combs, brushes, massage heads, Figure 6 and Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 8, Mainini et al. teaches:
8. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the dirty fluid tank (dirty water storage tank 114) includes a dirty fluid tank base (interface of dirty water storage tank 114 with stationary internal air return conduit 148 and internal conduit 142) with a gasket extending about an upper end of the dirty fluid tank base (see discussion below) and a dirty fluid tank lid (see discussion below) removably mounted to the upper end of the dirty fluid tank base.
Mainini et al. discloses in Paragraph [0023] a removable coupling between the two stationary conduits 142, 148 and the dirty water storage tank 114. Mainini et al. does not disclose a gasket extending about the upper end of the stationary conduits 142 and 148. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a gasket at the location of the removable coupling with the motivation to seal the coupling to prevent leakage since gaskets are a common solution to creating a watertight seal.
Mainini et al. discloses a dirty water storage tank 114 that would obviously need to be emptied and cleaned occasionally. Mainini et al. does not disclose a lid on the dirty water storage tank 114, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a lid on the dirty water storage tank that would be removable from the upper end of the dirty fluid tank base by merely removing the entire dirty water storage tank 114.
Regarding Claim 9, Mainini et al. teaches:
9. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the clean fluid tank (clean water storage tank 112) includes a clean fluid tank base (interface of clean water storage tank 112 with stationary conduit leading to liquid pump 178, Figures 1 and 2) with a gasket extending about an upper end of the clean fluid tank base (see discussion below) and a clean fluid tank lid (see discussion below) removably mounted to the upper end of the clean fluid tank base.
Mainini et al. discloses in Paragraph [0062] a removable coupling between the conduit leading to pump 178 and the clean water storage tank 112. Mainini et al. does not disclose a gasket extending about the upper end of the conduit. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a gasket at the location of the removable coupling with the motivation to seal the coupling to prevent leakage since gaskets are a common solution to creating a watertight seal.
Mainini et al. discloses a clean water storage tank 112 that would obviously need to be removed and filled occasionally. Mainini et al. does not disclose a lid on the clean water storage tank 112 to allow it to be filled, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a lid on the clean water storage tank that would be removable from the upper end of the clean fluid tank base by merely removing the entire clean water storage tank 112.
Regarding Claim 10, Mainini et al. teaches:
10. (Original) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the pump assembly (liquid pump 178) is disposed upstream of the fluid heater (Stoltz et al. - heat exchanger 36 added to Mainini et al. device) relative to a direction of the cleaning fluid flowing through the spot cleaner apparatus (Stoltz et al. – location shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Mainini et al. teaches:
11. (Previously Presented) The spot cleaner apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the main housing (central housing 110) includes a base portion (bottom – hidden in Figure 1) and a casing (upside down T-shaped housing shown in Figure 1) defining an inner cavity, the inner cavity housing the pump assembly (liquid pump 178) and the vacuum assembly (airflow inducing motor 152 and impeller 154)(Figures 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 13, 14, and 16-20 under Mainini et al. US 2018/0103611 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 13, 14, and 16-20 are presented under Luyckx US 2023/0200612.
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-11 under Mainini et al. US 2018/0103611 in view of Stoltz et al. US 4,974,282 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-11 stand.
The Applicant argues that since the Mainini et al. reference can be filled with hot water, that it would not be obvious to modify Mainini et al. to include a heater. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Once the water tank is filled with warm water, the water will start to cool toward an equilibrium temperature of the room. Therefore, in a scenario where a tank is filled with warm water and a pet cleaning operation has been performed without consuming all the water in the tank, the water left in the tank will eventually cool to room temperature. Without the obvious modification described by the Examiner, if a user wishes to perform another cleaning operation later in the day or future day, the user will need to carry the tank back to the sink, empty the leftover water down the drain, and refill the tank with warm water. With the obvious modification described by the Examiner, the user will merely turn on the heater, have the leftover water heated by a heating element where a thermostat would shut off the heating once the desired temperature is reached that is safe to the user or pet. This modification taught by Stoltz is not a technically difficult modification and would provide the benefit to the user of not having to dump leftover water from the tank every time the water cools to a point where it is uncomfortable to the user/pet.
Using the Applicant’s logic presented in the Arguments, a hot tub can be filled with hot water every time it is used. However, it would have been obvious that without a heating element, it will cool to outside temperature and would need to be emptied before using future use. Yes, it is technically possible to empty the cold water from the hot tub and refill it with warm water every time it is used, however, it is an inconvenience that is easily solved by adding a heater/thermostat to the hot tub that allows the existing water to be heated to a desired and safe temperature.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723