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 of Species A2, B1, C1, D3, E3, F1, in the reply filed on 3/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). No claims have been currently withdrawn as a result of the election.
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):
“a flat inner surface” identified in claim 28 line 2. This appears to be materially different than the “flat inner surface” identified in claim 28 line 1.
“a rim” identified in claim 30.
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 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: “cleaning apparatus” in the claims.
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 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) 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 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 22 recites the limitation “adjacent grooves” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same grooves previously identified in the claims or a different grooves. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- adjacent ones of the grooves --.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “grooves” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same grooves previously identified in the claims or a different grooves. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the grooves --.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the grooved wall” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 28 (line 2) recites the limitation “a flat inner surface” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same flat inner surface previously identified in the claim or a different flat inner surface.
Claim(s) 24 is/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, 7, 8, 16, 18, 21-30, 31 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 (510; Figs 17, 20) in fluid communication with an interior (Fig 20 shows this);
at least one fluid outlet (550; Fig 22) in fluid communication with the interior (Fig 21 shows this);
a first reservoir (524 combine 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 a second reservoir (530; Fig 22) 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).
Regarding independent claim 16, the elements pertaining to the spray bar assembly, the fluid inlet and fluid outlets, 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:
a grooved wall (generally at 522 in Fig 19) separating the first reservoir from the second reservoir,
and wherein a flow path (510a; Fig 22; para 102) 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).
Regarding independent claim 31, the elements pertaining to the cleaning apparatus, spray bar assembly, the fluid inlet and fluid outlets, 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. The elements pertaining to the grooved wall as claimed are each disclosed by the prior art reference as discussed in the claim 16 rejection above.
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 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).
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 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 (Fig 21 shows arcs associated with the projections, grooves, guide rims, guiding portion, e.g. near the leader line of reference character 548 in Fig 21) 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 shows this).
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 inner surface (Figs 4, 21 show all this).
Regarding claim 29, Huang discloses:
the at least one fluid inlet is off center along a length of the body (Figs 17, 20 show this).
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).
Regarding claim 18, Huang 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).
Examiner’s note: Regarding limitations identified as “functional limitation”:
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.
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060075596 - cited for teaching a series of delivery ports 28 provided at spaced locations along the length of the manifold 26. The delivery ports 28 provide a substantially even distribution of cleaning liquid across the width of the extractor.
US 20140196230 - cited for teaching cleaning liquid dispensed from the cleaning liquid storage tank 9 into manifold 22, where it drips out of manifold 22 through delivery ports 26.
CN 113440065 - cited for teaching a spray bar in Figs 5-7.
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
Prosecution Insights