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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “light” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites “a computer a light”; claim 1 should recite “a computer, a light”.
Claim 1 further recites “said at said least two rigid rails.” It appears that claim 1 should recite “said at
Claim 4 recites “said at least at least”; claim 4 should recite “said
Claim 10 recites “said collection hopper, and disposed;” it appears that claim 10 should recite “said collection hopper
Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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 1-14 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 “at least three rigid rail cross-members, wherein at least two rigid rail cross-members”; it is not clear if at least two rigid rail cross-members are part of the previously recited at least three rigid rail cross-members or different and additional rigid rail cross-members.
Claim 1 further recites the limitations “the top surface”, and “said at
Claim 1 further recites “cart-like” limitations in multiple instances; it is not clear what cart-like means. A review of the written description does not provide a definition or clarification of the cart-like term.
Claim 1 further recites “a gear/chain/belt assembly … a chain”; it is not clear what a gear/chain/belt assembly means, is it an assembly that includes all three gear, chain and belt components or the limitation refers to three different assemblies? Furthermore, is the chain limitation capable of operating with the gear or belt assembly components?
Claim 1 further recites “at least one communication element” and also recites “a communication element”; it is not clear if a communication element is included in the at least one communication element limitation or if it refers to an additional and different communication element.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 2 recites the term “slightly staggered slits” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term slightly as used in claim 2 could mean different degrees of staggered when interpreted by the applicant and by a person of ordinary skills in the art.
Claim 3 recites “a cart like structure” and depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one cart-like structure”; it is not clear if a cart like structure in claim 3 is included in at least one cart-like structure as recited in claim 1 or refers to an additional and different cart like structure. Furthermore, it is not clear what cart like means. A review of the written description does not provide a definition or clarification of the cart like term.
Claim 3 further recites the limitations “the vertical portions” and “said sweeper attachment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “four track rollers” and depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one track roller”; it is not clear if four track rollers in claim 3 are included in at least one track roller as recited in claim 1 or refers to additional and different four track rollers.
Claim 4 further recites the limitations “said at least two rigid linear rails” and “the tops”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “may be comprised”; it is not clear if the limitations following the recitation may be comprised are required by the claim or not.
Claim 5 further recites the term “durable” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “durable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 further recites “cart-like structure”, it is not clear what cart-like means. A review of the written description does not provide a definition or clarification of the cart-like term.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said pin connection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the term “approximately one inch” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term approximately as used in claim 10 could mean different amounts with respect to an inch, e.g., 0.95in, 1.10in, etc., when interpreted by the applicant and by a person of ordinary skills in the art.
Claim 13 recites “a bristle height adjuster” and depends from claim 1 which recites “a bristle height adjustment jack screw”; it is not clear if a bristle height adjuster in claim 13 is referring to a bristle height adjustment jack screw as recited in claim 1 or is supposed to introduce an additional and different element.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Note that claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “said pin connection is replaced by a dynamic spring connection” which implies a pin connection is previously recited/introduced in claim 1, and claim 6 further replaces said pin connection with a dynamic spring connection, therefore, eliminates said pin connection, resulting in a failure to include all the limitations of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-5 and 7-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
A removable sweeper assembly capable of attachment to ground support equipment for removing foreign object debris from a planar surface, comprising a computer a light, wherein said computer is configured to communicate with said light; and wherein said light is visible to a user of said ground support equipment (as in the context of claim 1).
The closest prior art reference (Brickner-McDonald – US 20220307210 A1 & US 11840813 B2) discloses a removable sweeper assembly with all the component as recited in claim 1 except for a computer, a light, wherein said computer is configured to communicate with said light; and wherein said light is visible to a user of said ground support equipment.
Another relevant prior art reference (Chiu – TW I358522 B) discloses a sweeping machine, however, the sweeping machine is a mine-sweeping type (machine translation page 1, note “Another type of mine-sweeping type is through a sweeping machine”). Said sweeping machine includes a control module (e.g., computer) which controls a sound and light output (machine translation page 2 last paragraph).
The examiner considered the possibility of combining the control module and light of the Chiu with the removable sweeper assembly of Brickner-McDonald, however, it is not exactly clear how said light output is used in Chiu. Furthermore, it is not readily apparent that both prior art references are analogous since the sweeper assembly of Brickner-McDonald is driven and operated by a user while due to the dangerous nature of a mine sweeping operation, it is not clear how a user operates the mine sweeping in terms of physical proximity and if said light output is visible to said user.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745