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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “308” has been used to designate both joint and rotating dial (also 308 is used for both in Figure 3). 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. 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 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: advancement mechanism in at least independent claims 1 and 12 (corresponds to a rotating dial and gearing or a motor and gearing, see specification paragraph [0039]) and a gearing mechanism in at least dependent claim 4 and independent claims 12 and 18 and (corresponds to a gear 704, based on Figures).
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.
Claims 2-8 and 10-11 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 2 lines 1-2 recites that the system comprises “a front compartment”. Is this the same front compartment required in claim 1 or an additional front compartment?
Claim 3 lines 1-2 recites that the system comprises “a rear compartment”. Is this the same rear compartment required in claim 1 or an additional rear compartment?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said rotational lock" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, recites “a rotational lock” in lines 1-2. Is this the same rotational lock? Was claim 3 meant to depend from claim 4 instead?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pierce, US 2018/0213997.
Regarding claim 1, Pierce discloses a mopping system comprising: a mop comprising a handle (11), a housing (14), and a removable cleaning cartridge (cartridge is the roll of material 22); said housing comprising a front compartment (front portion of 14 with lid 21, Figures 2 and 4), a rear compartment (rear portion of 14 with lid 29, Figures 2 and 4), a bottom surface (unlabeled, see Figure 4), and an advancement mechanism adapted to advance fabric of the cleaning cartridge (motor 42 and gear 44); said removable cleaning cartridge comprising the fabric (22), a first axle (unlabeled, shown center of roll of fabric 22 in Figure 2), and a second axle (at 31, Figure 3), wherein said fabric is attached at either end to said first and second axle and extends from said front compartment (Figures 2-4), along said bottom surface (Figure 4), and into said rear compartment (Figures 2-4); wherein said first axle is positioned within said front compartment and said second axle is positioned within said rear compartment (Figure 4); wherein said advancement mechanism is rotated to advance said first and second axles and said fabric such that said bottom surface is covered by a clean section of said fabric and a dirty section of said fabric advances into said front or rear compartment (paragraph 0034, Figure 4). Regarding claim 9, there are a pair of spray nozzles for dispensing a liquid (27, 28; Figure 2).
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, 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce, US 2018/0213997 in view of Garcia, US 8,555,449.
Pierce discloses all elements previously mentioned above, however fails to disclose that the front compartment comprises a flexible protruding gear rod and a sidewall groove.
Garcia teaches a mopping system comprising a handle (12), a housing (24, 30), and a removable cleaning cartridge (20); the cartridge includes first and second axles (72, 74) having fabric attached at its ends (22, see Figures) and extends across a bottom surface of the mop (Figure 2), the first axle is positioned in the front of the mop housing and the second axle is positioned within the rear of the housing (see Figures 1-2), wherein there is an advancement mechanism (18, 40; rotating dial/drive 52 transmits motion to gears of drivetrain 60) that rotate to advance the fabric (see Figures). Regarding claim 2, Garcia teaches that the housing includes a front compartment area having a flexible protruding gear rod (64) and a sidewall groove (unlabeled groove opening within wall 30 where the protruding rod extends and is mounted to, see Figures 2-3). In Garcia the gears of the drivetrain serve to transmit rotation from the dial shaft (52) to the gears (including 64) to transfer torque from the rotary shaft to an input of the first axle (Figure 1, column 5 lines 51-57).
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 front compartment of Pierce to include a flexible protruding gear rod and a sidewall groove, as taught by Garcia, so that there is a gear transmission to transfer motion or torque from the advancement mechanism to the axles of the cleaning cartridge housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-8 and 10-11 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 discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention of claims 3-8 and 10-20, as best understood. Pierce, US 2018/0213997 and Garcia, US 8,555,449 fail to disclose a rear compartment that comprises a pair of sidewall grooves, a tension arm, and a rotational lock. Pierce and Garcia also fail to disclose that the cartridge includes a dome shaped cap on a first end of an axile and a disc shaped cap on a second end of the first axle, gearing mechanism on a first end of the second axle and a rotating end cap on a second end of the second axle.
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