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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-22 in the reply filed on March 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, and 18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 5, 7, 11-12, 14-15, 19, and 21-22 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.
Claims 5, 7, 11-12, 14-15, 19, and 21-22 recites the limitation "characterized in that it" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which component of claim 1 is being referenced.
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.
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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejenberger (SU 1771494 A3 machine translation), and in further view of Kurihara (JP 2003285016 A machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lejenberger figures 1-5 teach a stain removal device for locally removing a stain from a textile comprising:
a holding device (assembly of 1 desktop/ work table and 2 support/ stand) which receives and fixes the stained area of the textile, wherein the holding device has a lower part (1 desktop/ work table) and an upper part (2 support/ stand, 3 lattice net) movably arranged thereon,
a storage container (5 water container) arranged on the holding device, which stores a cleaning fluid for a cleaning process,
a receiving container (4 exhaust duct) arranged on the holding device, which receives the cleaning fluid after the cleaning process,
wherein the holding device is connected to the storage container (under the work table 1 there is a container 5 with water) and the receiving container (exhaust duct) in such a way that a cleaning fluid contained in the storage container is applied to an area of the textile arranged in the holding device and finally received in the receiving container.[pages 2-4]
As to the limitation of the stain device being portable, a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.(MPEP 2144.04)
Lejenberger is silent to the lower part and the upper part abutting one another in a closed position receiving the stained area of the textile between them and releasing the textile in an open position, and that a cleaning fluid contained in the storage container is supplied to the holding device before being applied to an area of the textile arrange in the holding device.
Kurihara is directed towards a method and apparatus for removing stains where figures 1-2 and 4 teach sealing means 4 is disposed on the upper part of the holding plate 3 and is moved downward to make the upper opening of the container body 2 in a sealed state, and in the cleaning step, the container body 2 is closed. Kurihara further teaches cleaning means 5 has a discharge hole 7 connected to the cleaning fluid supply pipe 9, and the cleaning fluid discharged from the discharge hole 7 from underneath the holding tray 3.[page 3]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a configuration as taught by Kurihara to provide stain removal in a contained environment.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have the upper part of the holding device is rotatably arranged on the lower part as an art recognized equivalent for the same purpose of opening the portable stain removal device.(MPEP 2144.06)
Regarding claim 3, Lejenberger figure 1 teaches a cleaning fluid supply line (11 pressure water line) is connected to the storage container (5 water container), wherein the cleaning fluid supply line supplies cleaning fluid contained in the storage container to a textile arranged in the holding device
Regarding claim 4, Lejenberger figure 1 teaches a heating device (7 heater) is arranged on the cleaning fluid supply line, wherein the heating device heats the cleaning fluid.[page 2]
Regarding claim 5, Lejenberger figure 3 teaches at least one spray nozzle (30, 31 nozzle) via which the cleaning fluid is applied as a spray application to the area of the textile arranged in the holding device.[page 3]
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a washing container which receives the cleaning fluid supplied from the storage container and at least the stained area of the textile to collect the debris from the exhaust duct 4 of Lejenberger.
Regarding claim 8, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the washing container is accommodated in the lower part of the holding device as the exhaust duct 4 of Lejenberger is provided underneath the working table 1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lejenberger suggests the washing container is connected to the receiving container (7 exhaust duct) via a cleaning fluid discharge line to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 11, Lejenberger figure 1 teaches a pump (8) which delivers the cleaning fluid from the storage container.[page 2]
Regarding claim 12, Lejenberger figure 1 teaches a cleaning additive container (16 low foaming detergent container) which stores a cleaning additive for the cleaning fluid.[page 2]
Regarding claim 13, the low foaming detergent container 16 of Lejenberger is capable to a cleaning additive capsule containing the cleaning additive.
Regarding claim 15, Kurihara teaches cleaning is generally carried out by a method such as brushing thereby suggesting a brush which is movable relative to the holding device to be an obvious modification.[page 2]
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a resiliently mounted pressure plate is arranged on the holding device, which pressure plate interacts with the brush in such a way that the pressure plate is in an initial plate position and is unloaded by the brush, when the brush is in an initial brush position, and that the brush presses against the pressure plate in a brush-cleaning position and thereby presses the pressure plate against the spring force into a plate-cleaning position as the cleaning takes place from an underside of the holding plate 3 in Kurihara.
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the pressure plate is arranged in the washing container as a rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 19, Lejenberger figure 1 teaches compressed air is supplied from a (not shown) source via a compressed air line 24. The conduit 24 leads to an air heater 25 thereby suggesting a fan which generates an air flow through the area of the textile received in the holding device to be an obvious modification.[page 3]
Regarding claim 20, Lejenberger figure 1 teaches the contaminated area of the material is placed on a support 2 (lattice mesh 3) thereby reading on the holding device comprises a support plate for the textile.[page 3]
Regarding claim 21, Lejenberger figure 1 teaches water-heating device 7 thereby suggesting a steam generating device to be an obvious modification for removing stains.
Regarding claim 22, Lejenberger teaches processing device 12 is provided with a
shut-off element 13, which is controlled by means of the schematically depicted push button 14, a further shut-off element 22, which is controlled by means of a push button 23 thereby suggesting a controlling device.[pages 2-4]
The portable stain removal device according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejenberger (SU 1771494 A3 machine translation) and Kurihara (JP 2003285016 A machine translation), as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Schlack (US 2022/0034016).
Regarding claim 14, Lejenberger in view of Kurihara is silent to a reading device which detects a machine-readable code arranged on the cleaning additive capsule.
Schlack is directed towards a detergent dosing device where a camera determines the type or material is matched with the data transmitted by the readers to the app about the type of detergent in the individual receptacle areas present first and second containers with detergent, so that a suitable detergent is automatically selected by controlling the respective associated receptacle area and/or container with liquid or powder detergent.[0222]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a camera as taught in Schlack so that a suitable detergent is automatically selected by controlling the respective associated receptacle area and/or container with liquid or powder detergent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao (US 2019/0242053) directed towards a portable stain removal kit. Luenberger (EP 0325192 A1) directed towards a method and device for spot cleaning a textile surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTI J TATE-SIMS whose telephone number is (571)272-1722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
CRISTI J. TATE-SIMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/CRISTI J TATE-SIMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights