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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objection regarding the term “rim” in claim 30, Applicant’s remarks on the record provide the required clarification regarding the element at issue thus the related objection is withdrawn. Regarding all other prior drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome those objections.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections.
Regarding the prior 112(f) claim interpretation, Applicant’s remarks are directed towards that the specification inherently discloses the structure of the term, that MPEP 2181 allegedly states that 112(f) “will not apply if persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function.” (passage enclosed within quotes by Applicant), and that the 112(f) interpretation is improper for such reasons.
Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because:
the 112(f) interpretation is meant to rely on the specification for disclosing the structure of the term. See the claim interpretation of the previous non final rejection: “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.”
Applicant misquoted the MPEP 2181 passage; Applicant reorganized the words of the actual passage, omitted information from the actual passage, and then enclosed the amended passage within quotes. The actual recitation is in MPEP 2181.I.A.paragraph3 as: “If persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks") 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will not apply.” This recitation applies to terms such as e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks"; these are not analogous to terms such as "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for" which are addressed in MPEP 2181.I.A.paragraph1. Applicant’s limitation “cleaning apparatus” may cover a broad variety of devices such as and not limited to e.g. vacuum cleaners, floor scrubbers, pressure washers, steam mops, floor buffers, and is essentially “apparatus for cleaning” and thus is commensurate with the latter set of terms, not with the former set of terms. Examiner assumes the misquote was accidental and not intentional.
The claim interpretation is deemed proper for the reasons discussed above.
Respectfully, the interpretation is thus maintained for the reasons above.
Regarding the prior art rejection of the independent claims, in paragraph 3 of page 9 through paragraph 3 of page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended independent claims.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to prior art. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Regarding the new claims 32, 33, 34, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“the first height varies along a length of the body” identified in claim 34. No figures appear to show this and thus the concept is not clear. E.g., how exactly does this height vary? Examiner notes, particularly because the specification does not appear to provide details regarding this, that it is unlikely that this element can possibly be included into a figure without inherently introducing new subject matter.
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”).
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 previous claim interpretation(s) (identified in the office action mailed on 6/04/2026) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) regarding the term(s) “cleaning apparatus” is/are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1, 7, 8, 21-30, 32, 33, 34 is/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 1 (line 13) recites the limitation “the inlet passage of the at least one fluid outlet” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the inlet passage -- wherein it is suspected that “outlet” is a mistake.
Claim 32 (line 1 and line 4) recites the limitation “the guiding portion” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 32 (line 3) recites the limitation “the guide rims” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 33 (line 1) recites the limitation “the guiding portion” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 21-30, 34is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 31, 7, 8, 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200214526 A1 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding independent claim 1, Huang discloses:
A cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a housing (64; Fig 1);
a base (62; Fig 1) operably coupled to the housing and configured to engage a surface to be cleaned;
a supply tank (34; Fig 1);
and a spray bar assembly (500; Fig 17) in fluid communication with the supply tank,
wherein the spray bar assembly includes a cover (generally at 106 in Fig 4) and a body (generally at 88 in Fig 4) coupled to the cover (Fig 4 is analogous to Applicant’s configuration and shows all this),
and wherein the body comprises:
at least one fluid inlet (presence indicated by 510a in Fig 22) in fluid communication with an interior (e.g. Fig 22 shows this);
the at least one fluid inlet having an inlet passage (inherent as the general space of a structure through which fluid flows is a fluid passage);
at least one fluid outlet (Annotated Fig 22a) in fluid communication with the interior (Fig 21 shows this);
a first reservoir (524 combined with 528; Figs 19, 21) defined within the interior and at least partially defined by a guide portion (at 520 in Fig 22) of the body,
wherein the first reservoir is disposed between the at least one fluid inlet and the at least one fluid outlet (Figs 4, 17-22 indicate all this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s) and wherein the inlet passage of the at least one fluid outlet is defined through the guide portion for directing fluid to the first reservoir (e.g. Fig 22 shows this);
and a second reservoir (Annotated Fig 22a) defined within the interior proximate to the first reservoir,
wherein a fluid flow path (510a; Fig 22; para 102) through the spray bar assembly is defined from the at least one fluid inlet, through the first reservoir and the second reservoir, and through the at least one fluid outlet (Figs 4, 17-22 indicate all this; para 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 22a
PNG
media_image2.png
259
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 21a
Regarding independent claim 31, Huang discloses:
A cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a housing (64; Fig 1);
a base (62; Fig 1) operably coupled to the housing and configured to engage a surface to be cleaned;
a supply tank (34; Fig 1);
and a spray bar assembly (500; Fig 17) in fluid communication with the supply tank,
wherein the spray bar assembly includes a cover (generally at 106 in Fig 4) and a body (generally at 88 in Fig 4) coupled to the cover (Fig 4 is analogous to Applicant’s configuration and shows all this),
and wherein the body comprises:
at least one fluid inlet (presence indicated by 510a in Fig 22) in fluid communication with an interior (e.g. Fig 22 shows this);
at least one fluid outlet (Annotated Fig 22a) in fluid communication with the interior (Fig 21 shows this);
a first reservoir (524 combined with 528; Figs 19, 21) defined within the interior,
wherein the first reservoir is disposed between the at least one fluid inlet and the at least one fluid outlet (Figs 4, 17-22 indicate all this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s),
and wherein the inlet passage extends through a guide portion (at 520 in Fig 22) of the body that at least partially defines the first reservoir to direct fluid into the first reservoir between a top surface of the body and a bottom surface of the first reservoir (Fig 22 shows all this);
and a second reservoir (Annotated Fig 22a) defined within the interior proximate to the first reservoir;
and a grooved wall (generally at 522 in Fig 19) disposed within the interior to separate the first reservoir from the second reservoir,
wherein a fluid flow path (para 0102) through the spray bar assembly is defined from the at least one fluid inlet, through the first reservoir and the second reservoir, along grooves (548; Fig 19) of the grooved wall, and through the at least one fluid outlet (Figs 4, 17-22 indicate all this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s).
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses:
a suction assembly (in Fig 1);
and a nozzle assembly (generally at 16 in Fig 4) defining an inlet in fluid communication with the suction assembly for generating a vacuum effect (Figs 1, 4 indicate this),
and wherein the cover is integrally formed with the nozzle assembly (Fig 4 indicates this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s).
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses:
an agitator assembly (26; Fig 3) including a brushroll cover (102; Fig 4),
wherein the cover of the spray bar assembly is integrally formed with the brushroll cover (Fig 4 indicates this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s).
Regarding claim 21, Huang discloses:
a grooved wall (generally at 522 in Fig 19) disposed within the interior to separate the first reservoir from the second reservoir, wherein the grooved wall defines grooves (548; Fig 19) spaced along a length thereof (Figs 4, 17-22 indicate all this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s).
Regarding claim 22, Huang discloses:
the grooved wall defines a first height (height of 548 in Fig 19) within each groove and a second height (height of 522a in Fig 19) between adjacent ones of the grooves (Fig 19 shows this),
the second height being greater than the first height (Fig 19 shows this) to promote fluid flowing through the grooves to the second reservoir (functional limitation).
Examiner’s note: Regarding limitations identified as “functional limitation” within this office action:
Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or how a device is intended to be employed. See MPEP 2114(II).
It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
The device in the prior art reference has all the necessary structure and therefore performs the claimed function in the same manner as Applicant’s device. Since the prior art discloses all of the same structural elements which Applicant claims, the prior art structure would be expected to perform the same as Applicant’s structure.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
A recitation of the intended use, or intended result, 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.
Regarding claim 23, Huang discloses:
the grooved wall defines a first height (height of 522a in Fig 19) defined by projections (522a; Fig 19) and a second height (height of 548 in Fig 19) defined by the grooves (548; Fig 19).
Regarding claim 24, Huang discloses:
the second reservoir includes guide rims (shown flanking channel 548 in Fig 21) extending along a guiding portion (Fig 21 shows this),
the guide rims being aligned with the projections of the grooved wall (Fig 21 shows this),
and wherein arced surfaces (Annotated Fig 21a) are defined along the guiding portion and aligned with the grooves.
Regarding claim 25, Huang discloses:
the body includes an engagement wall (generally at 512 in Fig 22) disposed proximate to the cover, and wherein the second reservoir is bound on opposing sides by a guiding portion integrally formed with the grooved wall and a sidewall (Fig 21 shows all this), and wherein the guiding portion is a vertical wall (Fig 21 shows this).
Regarding claim 26, Huang discloses:
the at least one fluid outlet includes multiple fluid outlets arranged in a linear pattern along a length of the body (Fig 21 indicates duplications of the at least one fluid outlet shown in Annotated Fig 22a).
Regarding claim 27, Huang discloses:
the first reservoir is shallower than the second reservoir (Fig 21 shows this).
Regarding claim 28, Huang discloses:
the cover includes a flat inner surface, and wherein the first reservoir includes a flat bottom surface (Figs 4, 21, 22 show all this).
Regarding claim 29, Huang discloses:
the at least one fluid inlet is off center along a length of the body (Fig 22 shows this, wherein “a length” is claimed broadly and thus can be mapped to virtually any direction or line shown in for example Fig 22).
Regarding claim 30, Huang discloses:
the cover defines a groove (near the leader line of reference character 512 in Fig 21) on an inner surface thereof, and wherein the body includes a rim that is received within the groove to couple the cover to the body (Fig 21 shows all this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s).
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) 16, 18, 32, 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding independent claim 16, the elements pertaining to the spray bar assembly, the fluid inlet and a fluid outlet, the first reservoir and the second reservoir, as claimed are each disclosed by the prior art reference as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above.
Huang further discloses:
Fluid outlets (plural) (Fig 21 indicates duplications of the at least one fluid outlet shown in Annotated Fig 22a);
a grooved wall (generally at 522 in Fig 19) separating the first reservoir from the second reservoir,
wherein the grooved wall defines grooves (548; Figs 19, 22) and arced surfaces (Annotated Fig 21a) aligned with the grooves,
the arced surfaces extending to a surface defining the fluid outlets (Annotated Fig 22a) with each of the arced surfaces being aligned with a corresponding one of the fluid outlets (para 0101: “The number of spray bar outlets 550 can be the same as the number of the plurality of second notches 546”; also Fig 17 shows outlet nozzles and Fig 19 shows the same number of grooves/arced surfaces),
and wherein a flow path (para 0102) through the interior of the body is defined from the at least one fluid inlet, through the first reservoir, along grooves (548; Fig 19) of the grooved wall between the grooved wall and the cover, and into the second reservoir to the fluid outlets (Figs 4, 17-22 indicate all this, wherein the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s).
Insofar as Applicant may disagree that Huang shows “the arced surfaces extending to a surface defining the fluid outlets” because Huang shows a wall-type feature (see this feature at the leader line of reference character “530” in Fig 21), it is noted that Applicant’s figures also appear to show such a feature; see Applicant’s images at Figs 4, 9, 12, 13. It is also noted that Applicant’s arced surfaces do not actually contact or lead directly into Applicant’s outlet passages 270, nor actually contact or otherwise lead directly into the structure contacting the leader line of reference character “30” (i.e. “fluid outlet 30”). Both Applicant’s arced surfaces and Huang’s arced surfaces appear to exist within a lower/downstream portion of a reservoir directly adjacent to a nozzle/outlet/outlet passage. For all these reasons, Huang’s and Applicant’s configuration regarding the arced surfaces are analogous.
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the arced surfaces are optional (para 0072: “The guiding portion 258 may define arced surfaces 264 to form flow channels or may be flat.”) which indicates that the arced surfaces are not critical to the invention. As such, in light of a lack of criticality for this element, the following rejection is also provided:
Courts have established that a change in size/proportion or shape will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is a practice requiring only ordinary skill and hence is considered a routine expedient and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this particular case, because the prior art’s arced surfaces are shown similarly to Applicant’s, each extending to a lower portion of the second reservoir in the vicinity of the outlet/nozzle/outlet passage, any slight difference between Applicant’s and the prior art’s is held to be obvious. In other words, it would not be inventive to merely slightly extend the prior art’s arced surface such that it reaches slightly deeper into the second reservoir in the vicinity of the outlet/nozzle/outlet passage and reaches to the outlet/nozzle/outlet passage. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Such a change would not result in unpredictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. All this above also applies to the associated projections/rims that flank each of Huang’s arced surfaces.
Regarding claim 18, Huang as modified above discloses:
the fluid outlets are defined in a bottom of the second reservoir (Fig 21 shows this) to dispense fluid to a surface to be cleaned (functional limitation).
Regarding claim 32, Huang as modified above discloses:
the guiding portion includes projections (shown flanking channel 548 in Fig 21) between adjacent ones of the grooves, the projections extending into the second reservoir and to the surface defining the fluid outlets (see claim 16 discussion above regarding the arced surfaces and projections/rims),
and wherein the guide rims and the arced surfaces define flow channels along the guiding portion to the fluid outlets (see claim 16 discussion above regarding the arced surfaces and projections/rims).
Regarding claim 33, Huang as modified above discloses:
the guiding portion extends perpendicular from the surface defining the fluid outlets (see claim 16 discussion above regarding the arced surfaces and projections/rims, including the modification).
Regarding claim 34, Huang discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose: the first height varies along a length of the body to promote the fluid flow along the grooves.
However, courts have established that a change in shape will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is a practice requiring only ordinary skill and hence is considered a routine expedient and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this particular case, it would not be inventive to, for example, include radiuses within the grooves at/along the projections flanking each groove in order to eliminate sharp corners which may disrupt fluid flowing through the grooves. Such a small and obvious change in shape would result in teaching the limitation above, and would also serve the purpose of promoting the fluid flow along the grooves. It is not inventive to merely change the prior art’s shape in such a way, as such a modification would result in predictable results to the potential disruption of fluid flowing along sharp features, as one having ordinary skill would understand. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure clearly identifies that varying the height along a length is optional (para 0064: “It is also contemplated that the first height may vary along the length of the body 24”) which indicates that the particular element is not critical to the invention.
It is further noted that according to some manufacturing processes, it would be impossible to manufacture the grooves without some radius present at the interface between each groove and an adjacent protrusion (e.g. any manufacturing process wherein the grooves are created by removing material). In such cases, this would inherently result in the limitation above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
