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 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 (comprises base 1 and arms 3, 5, 7) 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); and at least one adjustable length cable extending along the at least one arm (9, Figure 1). 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 14-17 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.
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 Diedrichs, US 10,959,595 that discloses an adjustable curvature cleaning structure comprising a frame (includes 22, 72) that comprises a base (22) operatively engaging an elongated handle structure (16) and at least one arm projecting away from the base (24), the arm comprising a single link element (24) with a hinge disposed between the link and the base that is bendable upwardly and downwardly (82, Figure 5), and an adjustable length rod extending along the at least one arm (84, Figure 5). Wang, CN 111281294 is also cited as being relevant to the present application. There is an adjustable length cable (rope 33, 34) that adjusts arms (22, 23) to pivot about a hinge axis so that the mop head can be folded (see English translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues points 1-4 on pages 7-8 of the remarks of 4 May 2026. The examiner does not find these persuasive for the following reasons.
In point (1) the applicant argues that the office action does not identify the recited frame and “skips directly to interpreting element (1) of the primary reference to be the recited base of an unidentified frame.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and attempts to clarify how claim 1 is being interpreted. Claim 1 lines 3-5 recites that the cleaning structure comprises “…a frame comprising a base…and at least one arm…” The examiner pointed to the base being represented by reference number (1) and at least one arm being represented by (3, 5, 7). In the non-final rejection of 3 February 2026 the examiner pointed to these reference numbers for the structural parts of the frame that comprise the base and arms. The examiner did not “skip” the frame, rather listed the relevant reference numbers of the individual components that form the frame. Claim 1 does not recite or require that the frame is a unique structure separate from the base and at least one arm.
In point (2) the applicant argues that the claim interpretations of the recited “base” and “arm” are outside of the BRI Boundaries. The examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP §2111 “…the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings.” The specification does not provide a special definition for frame, base, or arm. Merriam-Webster provides ten definitions for “base”, the first definition being “the bottom of something considered as its support” (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/base) and sixteen definitions for “arm”, one definition being “something like or corresponding to an arm: such as a slender part of a structure, machine, or an instrument projecting from a main part” (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arm). In KR 101147814 the structure at reference number “1” forms a support as a base is defined as and reference numbers “3, 5, 7” are slender parts of structure projecting from a main part as they project from “1”. The applicant notes that in paragraph [0007] that the frame is also referred to as a mop head. In KR 101147814 the frame does refer to a mop head (see English translation of KR 101147814 and Figure 1). In KR 101147814 the frame, comprising base 1 and arms 3, 5, 7 form a frame is also a mop head, the mop head connects to handle 15. The examiner maintains that the interpretation of “base” and “arm” are within the boundaries established for BRI according to the MPEP.
In point (3) the applicant states that the office action ignores the recited curved relation relative to the base. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not define “upwardly” and “downwardly” and the arms of KR 101147814 are capable of being bendable upwardly or downwardly in that the upward and downward directions vary depending on how the device is held.
In point (4) the applicant argues that the office action ignores the recited orientation of the arms and cables, specifically that the cables do not run along the arms are recited in the claims. As best understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “…at least one adjustable length cable extending along said at least one arm…” In KR 101147814 Figure 1, there are cables (9) that extend along the arms (at least arms 5 and 7) and are affixed at couplings 17, 19, 21, 23 (Figure 1 and English translation, Figure 1 shows cables extending along and above the arms 5 and 7). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cable running along the length dimension) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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.
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
Prosecution Insights