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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 is missing punctuation. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a length adjustment mechanism” in claim 1 (corresponding structure includes a mechanism including the combination of a worm gear, ring gear, and spool described in paragraph [0024], an electric motor described in paragraph [0028], or a rotatably adjustable spool as described in originally filed claim 11).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said worm gear" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is claim 17 meant to depend from claim 16 instead of claim 1?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101147814 B1 (see also English translation) in view of Cook, US 10,076,221.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, KR 101147814 discloses an adjustable curvature cleaning structure adapted to clean both flat and curved surfaces (see Figures, capable of cleaning flat and curved surfaces), the cleaning structure comprising: a frame comprising a base (1) operatively engaging an elongated handle structure (15; Figure 1) and at least one arm projecting away from the base (3, 5, 7 form an arm), said at least one arm comprising a plurality of link elements (3, 5, 7) with hinges disposed between said link elements (unlabeled, see Figure 1) such that said at least one arm is bendable upwardly and downwardly in curved relation relative to said base (see English translation, upward and downward directions vary depending on how the device is held); at least one adjustable length cable extending along the at least one arm (9, Figure 1), wherein a proximal end of the at least one adjustable length cable is operatively connected to a length adjustment mechanism disposed at said base that is a rotatably adjustable spool engaging the at least one cable and adapted to take up and release portions of the at least one cable in response to rotational adjustment of the spool (11, Figures 1-2; comprises a rotatably adjustable spool 25; see also English translation). Regarding claim 2, there are a pair of arms projecting laterally from opposing sides of the base (Figure 1).
KR 101147814 fails to disclose a material for the plurality of link elements, particularly that they comprise polymer or metal with living hinges disposed between the link elements (claims 6, 11).
Cook teaches an adjustable curvature cleaning structure that comprises a frame made of polymer or metal as it is recognized for its rigid and resilient properties (column 5 lines 39-41, column 6 lines 1-3) with polymer living hinges (136) so as to flex when cleaning curved surfaces (column 6 line 66 to column 7 line 21). Regarding claims 12-13, the hinges are polymer ribbons in the form of polymer living hinges and extend in a major length dimension of at least one arm (136, see Figures).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material used in construction of the frame of KR 101147814 so that it is polymer or metal and also to substitute the hinges with living hinges, as taught by Cook, so that the frame can be both rigid while allowing some resilience and flexibility and by forming the hinges integrally with the links allows for fewer parts to construct the frame.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101147814 B1 (see also English translation) and Cook, US 10,076,221 as applied to claim 1 in view of Yang et al., US 2014/0237749.
KR 101147814 and Cook disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fail to disclose that the polymer consists of is nylon, polyester, or polypropylene.
Yang et al. teach a similar cleaning structure wherein the frame comprises a polymer including nylon, polyester, or polypropylene in order to form a flexible cleaning base (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the polymer of KR 101147814 and Cook specifically to include nylon, polyester, or polypropylene as they are taught by Yang et al. to be polymers that form flexible cleaning structures.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101147814 B1 (see also English translation) and Cook, US 10,076,221 as applied to claim 1 in view of Yang et al., US 2014/0237749.
KR 101147814 and Cook disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fail to disclose that the at least one adjustable length cable consists of is nylon, polyester, or polypropylene. Regarding claim 5, the at least one adjustable length cable is a monofilament (see Figure 1).
Yang et al. teach a similar cleaning structure and that it’s known to use materials including polymer of nylon, polyester, or polypropylene due to its flexible nature (paragraph [0032]). In addition, nylon, polyester, and polypropylene are well known polymers used in the manufacture of many items including cable.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the cable of KR 101147814 and Cook from a polymer including nylon, polyester, or polypropylene as they are taught by Yang et al. to be polymers that are flexible and it would also be obvious to manufacture the cable from nylon, polyester, or polypropylene since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice (In re Leshin, USPQ 416 and MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Claims 7-10 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 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:
None of the prior art made of record disclose, teach, or suggest the invention of claims 7-10 or 14-18. In particular, the length adjustment mechanism of KR 101147814 does not include a worm gear operatively connected to a ring gear surrounding the rotatably adjustable spool. Cook does not include living hinges that comprise segments of polymer ribbons.
Other relevant prior art includes Abrahamson, US 8,528,146, which discloses an adjustable curvature cleaning structure adapted to clean both flat and curved surfaces (see Figures, Abstract), the cleaning structure comprising: a frame comprising a base (base is centermost cap of 145 that forms a T at 200, see Figure 2) operatively engaging an elongated handle structure (300) and at least one arm projecting away from the base (arm being the remainder of the cap 145 extending from the base resulting in two arms), said at least one arm comprising a plurality of link elements of polymer or metal (130; column 4 lines 60-62) with hinges disposed between said link elements (unlabeled, see Figures 2-3 and 5-10) such that said at least one arm is bendable upwardly and downwardly in curved relation relative to said base (see bendable arms in Figures 6-10, upward and downward directions vary depending on how the device is held, see also column 4 lines 1-15); at least one adjustable length cable extending along the at least one arm (160). In Abrahamson there is not a length adjustment mechanism disposed at the base.
DE 4202312 A1 to Piller teach an adjustable curvature cleaning structure adapted to clean flat and curved surfaces that includes one arm formed of a plurality of link elements (13, see Figures), the arm is bendable upwardly or downwardly (Figure 1), and includes a length adjustment mechanism (14). In Piller, there is not a material disclosed for the link elements and the length adjustment mechanism does not include a spool, gears, or motor.
US 4,845,800 to Pederson et al. is also relevant, but does not include a cable or length adjustment mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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 at 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 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg