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
Claims 1-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12 and claim 6, line 3 state “edge line”. For clarification it should read “sweeping edge line” 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.
Claim 3 and 6 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 3 recites the limitation "the fine dust" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this should read “the fine dust sweeping element”. It is being examined in this manner and needs to be corrected.
Claim 6, recites the limitation "the edge distance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110893087) in view of Van Niekerk (CA 2206187).
Zhang teaches a broom head, comprising: an elongated base member (4) extending between first and second ends and defining a base member plane with a base width and top and bottom faces; a rod receptacle (3) arrangement formed on or attached to the top face and configured to receive a rod end portion (1) along a rod axis; a fine dust sweeping element (8) extending downwards from the second face to a continuous sweeping edge defining an edge line normal to the rod axis the base member plane spanning at least the majority of the length between the first and second ends, the sweeping edge is defined between the base member plane and the bristles plane; and an array of bristles (5) protruding from a bristle support portion of the bottom face, said bristle support portion constituting a major portion of the bottom face, distal edges of the bristles defining a bristles plane parallel to the base member plane lower than said edge line (figure 1).
Zhang teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach that the base member, the array of bristles and the fine dust sweeping element are a single- piece molded article. Van Niekerk teaches a broom with a head, bristles, blade and socket that are formed in a single piece molded article (page 6, lines 6-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang so that the broom is a one piece molded article as taught by Van Niekerk to prevent any of the elements from becoming separated from each other and to allow for quick manufacturing.
With regards to claim 2, the single-piece molded article is made of an elastomeric material (abstract of Van Niekerk).
With regards to claim 3, the fine dust sweeping element extends downward from a longitudinal edge of the base member (figure 1 of Zhang).
With regards to claim 4, the sweeping edge line is in a plane parallel to and in between the base member plane and the bristles plane.
With regards to claim 5, a first distance between the base member plane and the sweeping edge line is greater than half of a second distance between the base member plane and the bristles plane (since the bristle plane is below the sweeping edge line, it is clear the first distance would be greater than half of the second distance).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 6, the bristles have a typical length, shorter than double the edge distance defined between the bottom face and said sweeping edge line (if the length of the sweeping element was doubled, the bristles length would be shorter than that doubled length).
With regards to claim 7, the edge distance is between 70% and 95% of said typical length (the sweeping element is about 95% shower than the length of the bristles).
With regards to claim 8, the rod axis that is angled with respect to the base member plane (0-90 degrees; paragraph 0008).
With regards to claim 9, the rod receptacle arrangement is pivotable allow a change of an angle between the rod axis and the base member plane (hinged).
With regards to claim 10, the rod receptacle arrangement is part of the single-piece molded article (as taught by Van Niekerk where the socket is part of the single manufacturing).
With regards to claim 12, the fine dust sweeping element is planar and defining a fine dust sweeping element plane about normal to the base member plane (figure 1).
With regards to claim 13, the sweeping element plane is parallel to at least some of the bristles (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110893087) and Van Niekerk (CA 2206187).
Zhang and Van Niekerk teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach two fine dust sweeping elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang so that is comprises two sweeping elements since duplicating parts for multiple effect is an obvious modification that has been considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110893087) and Van Niekerk (CA 2206187) further in view of Weis (USPN 9375076).
Zhang and Van Niekerk teach all the essential elements including that the fine dust element is at a front side of the broom head and defines downwardly extending plane with side element edges, in a front view of the broom head a majority of the bristles of said array are formed behind said downwardly extending plane (claim 15). The reference however fails to teach that there are end bristles that are angled with respect to other bristles in the array (claim 14 and 15). Weis teaches a broom with end bristles that are flared outwardly (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang so that it comprises bristles that flare outwardly from the ends as taught by Weis to allow for the bristles to reach tight spaces and corners.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723