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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) is acknowledged. Applicant traverses on the ground that the claims of Group II do not lack unity with Group I (e.g., claim 1) because they “provide a special technical feature common to all claims in the application” (Reply at 6). Applicant’s arguments are not unpersuasive. As set forth in the Requirement for Restriction, US 20040048557 A1 (“Nabeya”) includes an annular moat with a plurality of cleaning elements (Figs. 2C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025-0029, annular moat comprised of segments 7e underneath elements 5 recessed within the bottom side of base 2; Figs. 2C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025-0029, cleaning elements 5) (Restr. at 4). The fact that the indicated annular moat is comprised of individual annular segments (also known as an annular sector), where each annular segment has a cleaning element, does not distinguish claim 1 over Nabeya under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, including the limitation “an annular moat”. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” (emphasis added)); MPEP 2111. Further, the additional § 102 rejection discussed below shows that claim 1 does not make a contribution over the prior art. The Requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The amended statement of incorporation by reference to International Application No. PCT/US2022/072522 is ineffective because it was added on the date of entry into the U.S. national phase, which is after the filing date of this application. The filing date of this U.S. national stage application is the filing date of the associated international application, which is 05/24/2022. MPEP § 1893.03(b). Thus, the specification amendment of 11/22/2023 is new matter. MPEP § 608.01(p)(I)(B). To be clear, the objection is not to the priority claim; the objection is only with respect to the incorporation-by-reference statement to the International Application.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the annual moat” (claim 2, line 2) should be changed to --the annular moat--;
“to attach the base” (claim 3, lines 2-3) should be changed to --to attach to the base--;
“the base of the cleaning element” (claim 8, lines 1-2) should be changed to --the base portion of the cleaning element-- (to match the suggested change for claim 7 (see § 112(b) rejection for claim 7 below));
“each cleaning element” (claim 10, line 2) should be changed to --each cleaning element of the plurality of cleaning elements--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 3-5 and 7-9 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 5 recites the limitation “wherein the cleaning elements are oriented along an axis that is angled in relation to a radius of the base.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, as written, this limitation would require the cleaning elements (plural) to be oriented along an axis (singular) that is angled in relation to a radius (singular) of the base. It is not clear how multiple cleaning elements as disclosed in the specification could be all be oriented along the same angled axis as recited. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “wherein each of the plurality of the cleaning elements is oriented along an axis that is angled in relation to a radius of the base.”
Claims 3-5 and 7-9 are indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the cleaning elements” (claim 3, line 2); Examiner suggests changing this to “the plurality of cleaning elements”; claim 4 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 3;
“the cleaning elements” (claim 5, line 2); Examiner suggests changing this to “the plurality of cleaning elements”; see § 112(b) rejection for claim 5 above;
“the cleaning element base” (claim 7, lines 3-4); Examiner suggests changing this to “a base portion of a cleaning element of the plurality of cleaning elements”; claims 8-9 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 7.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Nabeya
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20040048557 A1 (“Nabeya”).
Regarding claim 1, Nabeya discloses a brush assembly for a floor machine (Figs. 2C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025-0029, brush assembly 10 is capable of being used in a floor polishing machine; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)), comprising:
a base having a top side attachable to a floor machine and a bottom side opposite the top side (Figs. 2C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025-0029, base 2 has a top side (bottom of Fig. 2C) that is capable of being attached to a floor machine, and a bottom side opposite the top side; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II));
an annular moat recessed within the bottom side (Figs. 2C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025-0029, annular moat comprised of segments 7e underneath elements 5 recessed within the bottom side of base 2);
and a plurality of cleaning elements secured within the annular moat and extending from the bottom side of the base (Figs. 2C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025-0029, cleaning elements 5).
Regarding claim 2, Nabeya discloses the brush assembly of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the plurality of cleaning elements are secured within the annu[lar] moat via a curable material (Figs. 2C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0028, 0039, 0053, cleaning elements 5 are secured within the annular moat via attachment to element 7 using epoxy (a curable material)).
Regarding claim 3, Nabeya discloses the brush assembly of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the cleaning elements each include a base portion configured to attach [to] the base and an abrasive portion (Figs. 2C, 3-4, 6; ¶¶ 0025-0029, 0039-0040, cleaning element 5 includes base portion 52 configured to attach to base 2 (via element 7) and abrasive portion 50/51).
Regarding claim 4, Nabeya discloses the brush assembly of claim 3 as applied above and further discloses wherein the abrasive portion is overmolded to a distal end of the base portion (Figs. 2C, 3-4, 6; ¶¶ 0025-0029, 0039-0040, abrasive portion 50/51 is adhered to the distal end of the base portion 52; the term “overmolded” is interpreted to include adhered or attached (Spec. ¶ 0032)).
Regarding claim 6, Nabeya discloses the brush assembly of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a plurality of pockets disposed within the annular moat, each pocket configured to receive a cleaning element of the plurality of cleaning elements (Figs. 2C, 3-4, 6; ¶¶ 0025-0029, pockets 7e/7c are capable of receiving a cleaning element 5).
Kolthoff
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170165811 A1 (“Kolthoff”).
Regarding claim 1, Kolthoff discloses a brush assembly for a floor machine (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5, brush assembly 1 is capable of being used in a floor polishing machine; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)), comprising:
a base having a top side attachable to a floor machine and a bottom side opposite the top side (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0001-0004, 0026-0035, base 5 has a top side (at reference 19 of Fig. 4) that is capable of being attached to a floor machine (e.g., via connector 6), and a bottom side (as shown in Fig. 5) opposite the top side; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II));
an annular moat recessed within the bottom side (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0026-0035, annular moat (between references 13 and 15 in Fig. 5) on bottom side, recessed relative to elements 13 and 15);
and a plurality of cleaning elements secured within the annular moat and extending from the bottom side of the base (Figs. 1-5, cleaning elements (lamella strips 4 with holders 3, including elements 12 and 22-24) extending from the bottom side and secured within the annular moat (via carrier 2); ¶ 0001-0002).
Regarding claim 6, Kolthoff discloses the brush assembly of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a plurality of pockets disposed within the annular moat, each pocket configured to receive a cleaning element of the plurality of cleaning elements (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0029-0035, pockets 9 and 11 are disposed in the annular moat (when carrier 2 is assembled with base 5) and are capable of receiving the cleaning elements 3/4).
Regarding claim 7, Kolthoff discloses the brush assembly of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a plurality of pocket sets disposed within the annular moat, wherein each pocket of a pocket set is configured to receive a portion of the cleaning element base (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0029-0035, two groups of pockets 9 and 11 (“pocket set”) are capable of receiving portion 3 (including elements 12) of the cleaning elements 3/4).
Regarding claim 8, Kolthoff discloses the brush assembly of claim 7 as applied above and further discloses wherein the base [portion] of the cleaning element comprises at least two spaced apart legs, wherein each pocket of a pocket set is configured to receive one of the two spaced apart legs (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0029-0035, each pocket 9 and 11 of the pocket sets is capable of receiving one of two spaced apart legs 12).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Kolthoff in view of Calloway
Claims 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170165811 A1 (“Kolthoff”) in view of US 20220160118 A1 (“Calloway”).
Kolthoff pertains to a rotary brush assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0001-0004). Calloway pertains to a rotary floor cleaning brush assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-22; ¶¶ 0002-0003). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 5, Kolthoff discloses the brush assembly of claim 1 as applied above. Kolthoff does not explicitly disclose wherein the cleaning elements are oriented along an axis that is angled in relation to a radius of the base. However, the Kolthoff/Calloway combination makes obvious this claim.
Calloway discloses wherein the cleaning elements are oriented along an axis that is angled in relation to a radius of the base (Figs. 5, 7; ¶¶ 0048-0059, cleaning elements 500 are oriented at an angle as recited (see angle θ in Fig. 5)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Calloway with Kolthoff by modifying the orientation of the pockets 9/11 of Kolthoff to be angled, resulting in the cleaning elements 3/4 attached therein to also be angled. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because “In this way, each adjacent bristle strip can be offset. The angled arrangement of the bristle strips on the gutter broom can support distributed contact with a surface such that each bristle strip wears evenly as compared to other bristle strips assembled at the same time and having the same properties...Because of the distributed wear, the bristle strips assembled at the same time and having the same properties can be replaced together.” (Calloway ¶ 0039). Further, “the angled arrangement of channels 250 can reduce contact between adjacent bristle strips 500 while rotating such that bristle strips 500 can be positioned to operate effectively.” (Calloway ¶ 0052).
Applicant has not disclosed that the angled configuration provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, Kolthoff discloses the brush assembly of claim 7 as applied above. Kolthoff does not explicitly disclose wherein each pocket set includes a pocket set axis that is offset at an angle from a radius of the base. However, the Kolthoff/Calloway combination makes obvious this claim.
Calloway discloses wherein each pocket set includes a pocket set axis that is offset at an angle from a radius of the base. (Figs. 5, 7; ¶¶ 0048-0059, pockets 250 are oriented at an angle as recited (see angle θ in Fig. 5)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 9 is the same as for claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, Kolthoff discloses the brush assembly of claim 1 as applied above. Kolthoff does not explicitly disclose wherein each cleaning element [of the plurality of cleaning elements] extends from the bottom surface of the base at an angle between about 25 degrees to about 75 degrees. However, the Kolthoff/Calloway combination makes obvious this claim.
Calloway discloses wherein each cleaning element [of the plurality of cleaning elements] extends from the bottom surface of the base at an angle between about 25 degrees to about 75 degrees (Figs. 5, 7; ¶¶ 0048-0059, cleaning elements 500 are oriented at an angle as recited (see angle α in Fig. 7; ¶ 0056, “can range from approximately 15 degrees to approximately 90 degrees, such as approximately 30 degrees to approximately 75 degrees, such as approximately 60 degrees.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 10 is the same as for claim 5, with the addition that modifying the cleaning elements 3/4 of Kolthoff to extend at an angle relative to the bottom surface of the base as recited (i.e., the angle α arrangement of Calloway Fig. 7) would allow the brush assembly to reach areas (see Calloway Figs. 2-4) without interference from the base, as compared to a configuration where the cleaning elements are perpendicular to the base (i.e., angle α is 90 degrees). Further. Applicant has not disclosed that this angled configuration (of claim 10) provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 11-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20100330887 A1 (“Hawkins”) discloses an abrasive flap wheel (Abstr.; Figs. 3-5);
US 20150209938 A1 (“Kolthoff2”) discloses a polishing disk with extending cleaning elements (Abstr.; Figs. 1-22);
US 20100125966 A1 (“Stein”) discloses a rotary floor brush assembly with extending cleaning elements (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6);
US 7203987 B2 (“Kuivikko”) discloses a rotary floor brush assembly with extending cleaning elements (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8b);
US 6457202 B1 (“Torres”) discloses a rotary floor brush assembly with extending cleaning elements (Abstr.; Figs. 1-13);
US 2480739 A (“Johnson”) discloses a rotary brush assembly with extending cleaning elements (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10);
US 20220080555 A1 (“Guctekin”) discloses a rotary abrasive pad with extending flaps (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2);
US 20010018316 A1 (“Blattler”) discloses a rotary grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-17; ¶¶ 0001-0023).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723