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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such as “is disclosed” see line 2) should not be present therein.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs 0031 and 0034, the specification discloses the lever 130 is “pulled” in order to extend the rod member 132 to push the plate 302 (see paragraph 0031, line 2 and paragraph 0034, lines 4-5); however, paragraph 0036 discloses the lever 130 is “pressed” in order to extend the rod member 132 to push the plate 302 (see lines 7-8). Viewing Figure 3, it appears the lever 130 needs to be “pressed” to extend the rod member 132 to push the plate 302. It appears paragraphs 0031 and 0034 should be amended to indicate the lever 130 needs to be “pressed” (as opposed to “pulled”) in order to extend the rod member 132 to push the plate 302.
In paragraph 0033, the specification discloses the trigger 126 is “pulled” to actuate actuator 202 to thereby dispense fluid (see lines 3-4); however, viewing Figure 2, it appears the trigger is “pushed” is actuate the actuator 202 to thereby dispense fluid. Clarification as to how the trigger actuates the actuator in order to dispense fluid is needed.
In paragraph 0035, the specification discloses when lever 130 is pulled “the mop head 110 becomes transversal to the handle 102” for providing effective squeezing of the water from the sponge, however, it is unclear as to how a pulling of the lever 130 will effect movement of the mop head with respect to the handle. Clarification is needed.
The specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The term “connecting rod” (see claim 9, lines 17 and 18 and claim 16, lines 21 and 22) does not have an antecedent basis in the specification. It appears in claims 9 and 16, “connecting rod” should be “rod member” (see, for example, paragraph 0034, line 4).
Further, the limitation “6 inches to 20 inches” (see claim 2, line 2; claim 10, line 2 and claim 17, line 2) does not have an antecedent basis in the specification. It appears in claims 2, 10 and 17, “6 inches to 20 inches” should be “9 inches to 12 inches” (see paragraph 0029, lines 1-2).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claims 1, 9 and 16, on line 2 of these claims, “a sprayer sponge mop;” should be deleted since the “multifunctional handheld cleaning tool” (see line 1) and the “sprayer sponge mop” (see line 2) both define the same device (see paragraph 0027, lines 2-3) and the elements recited in these claims after line 2 collectively define the “sprayer sponge mop”/“multifunctional handheld cleaning tool”.
In regard to claim 4, 12, and 16, these claims recite a “trigger and clutch wire connected to said nozzle” (see claim 4, line 2; claim 12, line 2 and claim 16, line 17); however, viewing Figure 2, neither the trigger 126 or the clutch wire 128 are connected to the nozzle 120. Clarification is needed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leao et al. (U.S. Patent 10,799,082, hereinafter Leao) in view of Widmer et al. (U.S. Patent 8,079,770, hereinafter Widmer).
In regard to claim 1, the Leao reference discloses a multifunctional handheld cleaning tool/sprayer sponge mop comprising:
a handle 107;
an ergonomic grip 109;
a sponge mop head 101;
a removable sponge mop (not shown, see the sentence bridging columns 2 and 3);
a cleaning solution reservoir 113; and
cleaning solution (see column 3, lines 3-10);
wherein the handle has a top end and an opposed bottom end;
wherein the ergonomic grip is proximal to the top end;
wherein the sponge mop head is pivotally connected to the bottom end of the handle (via hinge joint 105);
wherein the sponge mop head having the removable sponge mop selectively attached thereto (via hook and loop fasteners, see column 3, lines 1-3); and
wherein the removable sponge mop is reusable.
Although the Leao reference does not disclose the handle 107 is a telescoping handle, attention is directed to the Widmer reference, which discloses another mop which dispenses a cleaning fluid wherein the handle 14 includes telescoping section 14a, 14b in order to enable a user to adjust the length of the handle (see column 3, lines 6-13). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the handle in the Leao device can be a telescoping handle in order to enable a user to adjust the length of the handle.
In regard to claim 2, although the Leao reference does not disclose the distance between the cleaning solution reservoir and the bottom end of the handle, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the reservoir can be spaced from the bottom end of the handle at any suitable distance, including that claimed, without effecting the overall operation of the device since it has been held that discovering an optimum valve of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215, CCPA 1980). It is further noted the Applicant has not placed any criticality on this particular dimension and the Leao reference does not limit this particular dimension.
In regard to claim 3, the cleaning solution reservoir includes a nozzle (which exits at 301) for dispensing the cleaning solution onto a surface in front of a leading edge of the sponge mop head.
In regard to claim 4, the handle includes a trigger 111 and a “clutch wire” (defined by the mechanical linkage used to connect the trigger to the pump, i.e., see element 1001 in Figure 10 and column 3, lines 22-29; Further, inasmuch as element 128 in the Applicant’s invention defines a “clutch wire”, the linkage connecting the trigger and pump in the Leao device defines a “clutch wire”) connected to the nozzle (via various elements) for actuating the nozzle and dispensing the cleaning solution.
In regard to claims 5 and 6, the sponge mop head 101 is rectilinear. Although the Leao reference does not disclose the dimensions of the sponge mop head of the length of the handle, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made sponge mop head can be designed to have any suitable dimensions and the handle can be of any suitable length, including the claimed dimensions and length, without effecting the overall operation of the device since it has been held that discovering an optimum valve of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215, CCPA 1980). It is further noted the Applicant has not placed any criticality on these particular dimensions and the Leao reference does not limit these particular dimensions.
In regard to claim 7, the cleaning solution reservoir must inherently be either translucent, transparent or opaque.
In regard to claim 8, the sponge mop head is considered to be selectively removable from the handle (via element 105, see Figure 8 which shows how the device is assembled and therefore how the device may be disassembled).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Kunkler et al. and Davidshofer references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other trigger operated spray mop devices and the Penzes reference is cited as being directed to a sponge mop wherein the sponge is removably connected to the mop head.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
10/22/25
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754