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 7/21/2026 have been fully considered.
Examiner’s note: The claims document and Applicant’s remarks identify that claim 12 has been amended, however, this appears to be a mistake as the claims document does not show any actual amendment made to claim 12. Examiner is unable to identify any actual amendment to claim 12 thus no such amendment is hereby examined or considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, claim objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome some prior rejections.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections regarding the term “approximately”, in paragraph 5 of page 8 through paragraph 2 of page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that one or ordinary skill would understand what is claimed.
Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive because the term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to identify whether a temperature is “approximately 10 to 50 degrees above a boiling temperature” or not. For example, as it pertains to claim 8, is 52° above a boiling temperature “approximately 10 to 50 degrees” above the boiling temperature or not? How about 55° above the boiling temperature, is that “approximately 10 to 50 degrees” above the boiling temperature or not? How about 60° above? 75° above? 105° above? Are each of these values, some of these values, or none of these values, “approximately 10 to 50 degrees” above the boiling temperature? Applicant’s disclosure does not provide enough information actually answer any of these questions. The related rejections are thus maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 5 of page 9 through paragraph 4 of page 10 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 claim 1.
The arguments are persuasive. Please see allowable subject matter below.
In paragraphs 5-6 of page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are further directed to that one having ordinary skill in the art would not look to Holzmann’s disclosure and Holzmann’s structure is “in no way compatible” with Yan’s cleaner.
The arguments are not persuasive because Holzmann is analogous art to the claimed invention and to Yan. A reference may be analogous art if it is in the same field of endeavor even if it addresses a different problem, or if it is reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention even if it is not in the same field of endeavor. It is noted that the similarities and differences in structure and function of inventions and references carry greater weight than where the references are classified. See MPEP 2141.01(a). The function and structure of the claimed invention and the prior art references have been considered. In this case, Applicant’s disclosure and the references’ disclosures each encompass analogous structure performing analogous functions, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize. Particularly, Holzmann and Applicant each encompass a pump supplying a pressure vessel, in that Applicant’s structure incorporates a pump supplying fluid to a reservoir which is pressurized, a pressure sensor to measure that pressure, a valve to release that pressure, a controller to control that, and Holzmann provides a general teaching of a pressure system comprising a motor for a pump, a pressure reservoir, a pressure sensor, a safety valve, and a controller, employed in an analogous manner. Yan also similarly incorporates many such structural elements performing same functions thus Holzmann’s teachings are compatible with Yan’s disclosure.
Regarding the new claims 24, 25, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Claim Interpretation
The previous claim interpretations (identified in the office action mailed on 4/22/2026) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) regarding the term(s) “pressure control element” in the claims (e.g., claims 1 and 3) ; “external power source” (e.g., claim 10), are maintained.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examining this application, the term “superheat” within the claims is interpreted to mean that a liquid is heated to above its atmospheric boiling point and is still in a liquid state, as identified in paragraph 0040 and as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand the term with regard to heating a liquid. This note was originally made in the office action mailed on 4/22/2026.
Examiner’s note: Regarding the claim 1 limitation “the battery operable to power the heater”, this limitation is interpreted to mean that the battery is configured to power the heater, and not just that the battery has an inherent ability, as almost any correctly-sized battery would, to operate or power the heater. This interpretation is clearly supported by the disclosure which is largely directed towards such a configuration, e.g. para 0021: “The heater 50 is in electrical communication with the battery 26 such that the heater 50 receives power from the battery 26 during operation.”
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites the limitation “preheat when liquid when the” which is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten as -- preheat the liquid when the --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 8, 11-13, 25 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 8 recites the term “approximately”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to identify whether a temperature is approximately 10 degrees or not approximately 10 degrees.
Elaboration is provided in the response to arguments section of this office action.
Claim 11 recites the term “approximately”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to identify whether a temperature is approximately 10 degrees or not approximately 10 degrees.
Elaboration is provided in the response to arguments section of this office action.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the external power source” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim(s) 12, 13 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 14-15, 24 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 8, 11-13, 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 1 is mapped below to CN 115607053 A (hereinafter Yan) in view of US 20120204376 A1 (Charlton).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Examiner's note: The examiner's submitted English translation of Yan, submitted with the office action mailed on 4/22/2026, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses:
A surface cleaner operable to clean a surface (Fig 1 shows this), the surface cleaner comprising:
a housing (110; Fig 1) including a handle (112; Fig 2) and a base (generally at 130 in Fig 1),
the handle configured to move the base along the surface (Fig 1 shows this);
a supply tank (150; Fig 2) configured to store a liquid (e.g. lines 489-497);
a heater (122; Fig 3) including a reservoir (e.g. lines 369-376, 422-431, 456-466);
a battery onboard the surface cleaner (the disclosure is entirely directed towards use of a cordless, aka wireless, cleaning device, wherein this indicates a battery-operated cleaning device; e.g. lines 351-360),
a pump (160; Fig 2; e.g. lines 499-505) positioned between the supply tank and the heater,
the pump operable to draw the liquid from the supply tank and pump the liquid into the reservoir (e.g. lines 499-505),
the heater operable to superheat the liquid (e.g. lines 369-376, 464);
a pressure control element in fluid communication with the heater and operable to depressurize the liquid into vapor (e.g. lines 388-394, 458-461);
a nozzle (131; Fig 2) disposed in the base and in fluid communication with the pressure control element, the nozzle configured to dispense the vapor (e.g. lines 473-487);
Yan may not explicitly disclose:
The base is pivotably coupled to the handle
and a cleaning pad coupled to the base such that the cleaning pad directly contacts the surface.
However, Charlton, in the same field of endeavor, surface cleaners, teaches:
A base (16; Figs 1-4) of a steam surface cleaner, which pivots (para 0016) to enable the head to remain in flat contact with the surface while the user maneuvers the device, and which has a cleaning pad (44; Fig 3) with a steam nozzle (26; para 0018; Figs 2-3) to enable the cleaning device to steam scrub a surface to remove dirt and debris (para 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yan to include Charlton’s teachings as described above, replacing Yan’s head with Charlton’s head, in order to enable the head to remain in flat contact with the surface while the user maneuvers the device, and enable the cleaning device to steam scrub a surface to remove dirt and debris (para 0003, 0016).
This modification results in teaching the limitations above.
Yan does not disclose:
The battery is operable to power the heater.
No – Yan’s disclosure is entirely directed towards applying external power to a heater/steam generator (122; Fig 3) of a cleaner (Fig 1) which has an onboard battery too small to power the heater (e.g. lines 340-349: a 550W onboard battery and the steam generator requires 800W). His solution is to use a base station rather than a cord, in order to make his steam-equipped cleaner cordless. Once the heater creates superheated liquid at the base station, the cleaner can be removed from the base station for cordless use (e.g. line 351-360). Then, if the temperature of the superheated liquid drops below a certain level during use, the user is notified to return the cleaner to the base station for more heating (e.g. lines 740-744). If Yan’s on-board battery were modified to fully power the heater, it would nullify the very problem he’s endeavored to solve.
If Yan’s on-board battery were instead modified to only partially power the heater, or to provide supplemental power to the heater, after the base station already provided most of the power to the heater, then this modification would be directed towards the very invention which Applicant’s disclosure is entirely directed towards. At this time, the known prior art of record does not fairly disclose, teach, or suggest the missing limitation(s) as described above such that a modification would be possible in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One would not be motivated to modify Yan’s structure such that it would read on Applicant’s claim, without improper hindsight from Applicant’s disclosure. The claim is therefore deemed to be allowable over the prior art.
Claims 1-15, 24-25 each depend from claim 1 and would therefore be allowable over the prior art for at least that reason.
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
Prosecution Insights