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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Cleaning Apparatus with releasable Stand
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 connection member adapted to couple to the handle and the cleaning head and configured to releasably engage with the stand to enable storage of the handheld cleaning device to the surface or wall. The limitation is disclosed as element 6 and equivalents therefore.
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 Objections
Claims 30-43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 30-43, “A cleaning apparatus according to claim 28” should be “The cleaning apparatus according to claim 28”;
In claim 31, “thea surface of wall” should be “the surface or wall”;
in claim 32, “the channel” should be “the U-shaped channel”.
Appropriate correction 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 44-45 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
Re claim 44, “the cleaning device” lacks antecedent basis.
Re Claim 45, rejected as dependent to claim 44 above.
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 47 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. In claim 47, the limitation of “the connection member is releasably engaged with at least one of the cleaning had or the handle” does not further limit claim 46 that recites “a handle and a cleaning head that are releasably coupled together by a connection member, the connection member is adapted to engaged…the cleaning head and…the handle”.
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.
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) 28-30, 33, 35-42, 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi CN 203182290 U in view of Du CN 210696484 U and Lookholder US 2,414,653.
Re claims 28-29, 46-47, Shi teaches a cleaning apparatus [figs. 1-2] comprising:
a handle 2;
a cleaning head 3;
a connection member 1 adapted to couple to the handle 2 and the cleaning head 3; and
wherein the handle 2 is releasably coupled with the cleaning head 3 to form a handheld cleaning device; and wherein, the connection member 1 is adapted at a first end to engage with the handle 2 and adapted at an opposing second end to releasably engage with the cleaning head 3.
Shi does not teach a stand adapted to releasably engage with the cleaning apparatus, the stand configured to engage a surface or wall in use.
Du teaches a stand 6 [Figs. 1, 3] for a cleaning apparatus adapted to releasably engage with the cleaning apparatus [at magnetic attraction sheet 5], the stand 6 is configured to engage a surface or wall in use engage a surface or wall in use [“the mounting plate through strong adhesive on the kitchen wall”].
Shi, and Du, each disclose a mount or hanger for a cleaning apparatus. Shi discloses hanger 8. Du discloses mount [5, 6]. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the magnetic mount of Du could have been substituted for the mount 8 of Shi because they both serve the same purpose of providing a way of mounting or hanging a cleaning apparatus when not in use. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution, since the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing an easy and effective hanging for the cleaning apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mount of Du for the mount of Shi, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing an easy and effective stand for the cleaning apparatus when not in use.
Shi, and Du does not teach the connection member is configured to releasably engage with the stand to enable storage of the handheld cleaning device to the surface or wall. In other words, the location of the mount/hanger in Shi and Du, is not the same as the claimed invention.
However, Lookholder teaches a cleaning device 15 [Figs. 1-2] with a magnetic connection member 15’ between the cleaning head [bristles] and the [lower] handle configured to releasably engage with a stand 13 to enable storage of the handheld cleaning device to the surface or wall.
Shi, Du, and Lookholder each disclose a mount or hanger for a cleaning apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the location of the magnetic mount of Lookholder could have been substituted for the mount/hanger in the combination of Shi, and Du because all three mounts/hangers serve the same purpose of providing a way of mounting or hanging a cleaning apparatus when not in use. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution, since the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing an easy and effective mounting or hanging for the cleaning apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mount of Du for the mount of Shi at the location of the mount of Lookholder, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing an easy and effective stand for the cleaning apparatus when not in use.
Re claim 30, Shi further teaches wherein at least a portion of the handle 2 and cleaning head 3 are hollow and fluidly connected to each other [“body in cavity and the liquid outlet hole of the brush head 3 6 is connected with the back section of the handle 2 end is hollow”].
Re claim 33, Shi, Du, and Lookholder teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28. Du further teaches wherein the stand includes a base portion 6 [Fig. 3] and a connection member engaging member 8, the base portion 6 is adapted to engage with the surface or wall and includes one or more of a suction cup, waterproof adhesive, hook and loop, putty or cement material [“one side of the mounting plate is provided with a strong adhesive”], and the connection member engaging member 8 is adapted to releasably engage with the connection member 5.
Re claim 35, Shi, Du, and Lookholder teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28. Du further teaches wherein the connection member 5 comprises a magnetic component [magnetic sheet].
Re claim 36, Shi further teaches wherein the connection member 1 is a collar adapted at a first end to engage with the cleaning head 3 and adapted at an opposing second end to engage with the handle 2. Du teaches a metal sheet to engage with the magnet 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the collar of Shi made of metal in order to yield the predictable result of having a magnetic material to engage with a connecting magnet.
Re claim 37, Shi further teaches wherein the connection member 1 is cylindrical or a tapered cylinder.
Re claim 38, Shi further teaches wherein the connection member 1 is integrated with the handle 2 [when engaged together].
Re claim 39, Shi, Du, and Lookholder teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28. Du further teaches wherein the connection member 1 includes a magnetic component 5 configured to releasably engage with a magnetic stand 6.
Re claim 40, Shi further teaches wherein the cleaning head 3 and handle 2 are adapted to releasably engage with each other [through the connection member].
Re claim 41, Shi further teaches wherein the handle 2 comprises one or more of the following:
(i) a base and an elongated shaft which are adapted to releasably engage with each other;
(ii) a base and an elongated shaft which are adapted to releasably engage with each other and wherein there is a seal between the base and the elongated shaft; and
(iii) a base [end part of handle 2] and an elongated shaft [shaft part of the handle 2] and the elongated shaft and connection member 1 are adapted to releasably engage with each other.
Re claim 42, Shi further teaches wherein the cleaning head 3 comprises at least one of the following:
(i) a neck 5 and a brush head 7 with bristles [see fig. 1];
(ii) a neck and a brush head with bristles and the neck is adapted to releasably engage with the connection member or handle, and the brush head; and
(iii) a neck and a brush head with bristles and the brush head has a central aperture.
Claim(s) 31-32, 34, 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi CN 203182290 U in view of Du CN 210696484 U and Lookholder US 2,414,653 and in further view of Bellanda EP 3,366,177 A1.
Re claims 31, 44, Shi, Du, and Lookholder teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28. Du further teaches wherein the stand comprises a connection member engaging magnetic member 8.
The combination does not teach a magnetic base arranged on opposite sides of a surface or wall to be held in place by a magnetic connection between the connection member engaging magnetic member and the magnetic base.
However, Bellanda teaches a kit [M1, M2] comprising a connection member engaging magnetic member M1 and a magnetic base M2 arranged on opposite sides of a surface or wall S to be held in place by a magnetic connection between the connection member engaging magnetic member M1 and the magnetic base M2.
Thus, Du and Bellanda each disclose a system for connecting a kitchen accessory to a wall. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the magnetic kit of Bellanda could have been substituted for the adhesive of Du because both serve the purpose of providing a connection to a wall. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing a connection between the wall and the cleaning apparatus (kitchen accessory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the magnetic kit of Bellanda for the adhesive of Du according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing a connection between the wall and the cleaning apparatus (kitchen accessory).
Re claims 32, 37, 45, Shi, Du, and Lookholder teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28. The combination fails to teach at least a partially cylindrical form, and a first concave end shaped to form an elongate U-shaped channel that is able to receive at least a portion of the connection member of the cleaning device within the channel.
However, the specific shapes of a partially cylindrical form, and a concave end shape forming an elongated U-shaped channel would be easily conceived from fig. 3 of Du. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnet of Du to have cylindrical form, or a concave end forming an elongated U-shaped since it has been held that changes in shape are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant and further, in order to yield the predictable result of holding the connecting member to the surface or wall.
Re claim 34, Shi, Du, and Lookholder teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28 but fail to teach wherein the apparatus further includes a cleaning cloth or towel containing a piece of magnetic material which enables the cloth or towel to releasably engage with a magnetic region of the stand.
Bellanda teaches a cleaning cloth or towel [C] containing a piece of magnetic material M3, which enables the cloth or towel to releasably engage with a magnetic region of a stand M3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cleaning cloth of Bellanda with the cleaning apparatus of Shi in order to yield the predictable result of having desirable kitchen objects at hand [“objects that are usually desirable to have at hand can be kitchen objects and various accessories, but in particular those that are mostly used in the kitchen at all times are sponges and dishcloths”].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43 is 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:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show wherein the handle includes a hollow portion and the hollow portion is shaped to receive the stand.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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 at (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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights