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 .
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):
“an external power source” identified in claim 10.
“a battery charging station” identified in claim 11.
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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a conduit including a first fluid line extending between the supply tank the reservoir” which is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten to include the word --and--after “tank”, and is also objected to because it is unclear whether this is meant to indicate that the conduit extends between the supply tank and the reservoir or that the first fluid line extends between the supply tank and the reservoir. Note that if it is the latter, then this may result in a subsequent drawing objection because Fig 5 does not show a single fluid line connecting the supply tank 46 and the reservoir 70.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “pressure control element” in the claims (e.g., claims 1 and 3) ; “external power source” (e.g., claim 10).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “degrees” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what unit this is, e.g. degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit. For examination purposes this is assumed to be degrees Celsius.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “degrees” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what unit this is, e.g. degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit. For examination purposes this is assumed to be degrees Celsius.
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.
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) 1-4, 8-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 this office action, 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 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.
Regarding claim 2, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
a battery operable to power 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);
and a controller configured to control operation of the surface cleaner (e.g. line 409: “controlling the box body 121 to release pressure”).
Regarding claim 3, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
a conduit including a first fluid line (170; Fig 2) extending between the supply tank the reservoir, and a second fluid line (140; Fig 3; lines 473-487) extending between the pressure control element and the nozzle.
Regarding claim 4, Yan, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not disclose: the heater uses less than 250 Watts of power to heat the liquid.
However, Yan discloses (e.g. lines 345-349) that his steam generator/heater requires more than 800W of power and his battery provides only up to 550W of power. Since his battery does not provide the required power for his heater, the heater must then be connected to an external power supply to power the heater to generate steam. This appears to be an issue related to only size or scale, wherein the amount of power required (Watts are a measure of power—the rate at which energy is used to generate heat) is related to the size of the steam generator/heater or the amount/size of water to be heated.
Courts have established that a change in size 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). In this case, according to Yan’s disclosure (e.g. lines 345-349), it appears that only the size of Yan’s heater, and/or only the size/amount of Yan’s water to be heated, needs to be reduced in order to result in a heater small enough, or an amount of water small enough, such that only 250W, or a 250W battery, is required to achieve the desired result (i.e. turn Yan’s water in to steam using a particular amount of power). In other words, it is not inventive to merely reduce the size of Yan’s heater, and/or the size/amount of Yan’s water to be heated, to the extent that only 250W of power is required, rather than 800W of power, to turn Yan’s water into steam.
Regarding claim 8, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the liquid is heated to a temperature of approximately 10 to 50 degrees above a boiling temperature of the liquid at atmospheric pressure (e.g. line 406: higher than 100°C).
Regarding claim 9, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the liquid is pressurized at a pressure ranging from 1 bar to 3 bar in the reservoir (e.g. line 405: “pressure is greater than the standard atmospheric pressure”, wherein 1ATM = 1.01325 bar).
Regarding claim 10, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the surface cleaner is couplable to an external power source (base station 200; Fig 6), the surface cleaner is operable to pre heat the liquid when coupled to the external power source (e.g. lines 351-360).
Regarding claim 11, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the controller pre heats the liquid to a temperature approximately 10 degrees lower than a boiling temperature of the liquid at atmospheric pressure when coupled to the external power source (e.g. lines 398-406, wherein the liquid is heated from nominal up to over 100°C).
Regarding claim 12, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the external power source is a battery charging station (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), the battery charging station is operable to pre heat the liquid when coupled to the battery charging station (e.g. 398-406, 585-592).
Regarding claim 15, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the cleaning pad includes at least one aperture (56A; Fig 3) that allows the vapor to flow from the nozzle, through the at least one aperture, and onto the surface (Fig 3 shows this).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 5039175 A (hereinafter Holzmann).
Regarding claim 5, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
and wherein the surface cleaner includes a second sensor configured to measure a temperature of the liquid (e.g. lines 713-715 indicate a temperature sensor in box body 121).
Yan may not explicitly disclose:
the surface cleaner includes a first sensor configured to measure a pressure of the liquid (),
However, Holzmann, in the same field of endeavor, pumps supplying pressure vessels, provides a general teaching of pressure system (col 4 lines 42-57) comprising a motor for a pump, a pressure reservoir, a pressure sensor, a safety valve, and a controller, wherein the pressure sensor 59 indicates to the control unit 17 when the pressure reservoir 58 is filled full enough that further operation of the pump 60 is unnecessary, also the safety valve 61 opens at a pressure threshold to protect the pump 60 and pressure reservoir 58 from overload.
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 as modified above to include Holzmann’s teachings as described above, utilizing a pressure sensor and safety valve and controller as described above, in order prevent unnecessary operation of the pump and protect the pump and pressure reservoir from overload (col 4 lines 42-57).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Regarding claim 6, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the controller is operable to activate and deactivate the pump based at least in part on a signal received from the first sensor or second sensor (see claim 5 discussion regarding Holzmann).
Regarding claim 7, Yan, as modified above, discloses:
the controller is operable to activate and deactivate the heater based at least in part on a signal from the first sensor or second sensor (e.g. lines 713-715 identifies that heating is stopped at a temperature threshold value).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20160296091 A1 (Seo).
Regarding claim 13, Yan, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
a power cord couplable to the external power source to charge the battery when the surface cleaner is connected to the external power source.
However, Seo, in the same field of endeavor, surface cleaners, teaches:
A cordless surface cleaner which has a detachable power chord (30; Fig 1) and a charger (140; Fig 2) in order to obtain power from an external power source without using a physical docking station (e.g. para 0019).
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 as modified above to include Seo’s teachings as described above, having a detachable power chord and a charger in order to obtain power from an external power source without using a physical docking station (e.g. para 0019).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2011080085 A (hereinafter Okada).
Regarding claim 14, Yan, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
the pump is operable to pressurize the liquid to a predetermined pressure greater than atmospheric pressure.
However, Okada, in the same field of endeavor, pumps supplying pressure vessels, teaches a general teaching of using a pump to pressurize a fluid in a pressure vessel to above the atmospheric pressure and then using a heater to increase the temperature of the fluid in order to first increase the boiling point of the fluid (bottom of page 3 of English translation provided with this office action).
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 as modified above to include Okada’s teachings as described above, having Yan’s pump pressurize the fluid to above the atmospheric pressure and then using the heater to increase the temperature of the fluid in order to first increase the boiling point of the fluid (bottom of page 3 of English translation provided with this office action).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190380557 - cited for teaching a cordless steam mop configured to heat liquid to at least 100° C to generate steam.
US 20010039684 - cited for teaching a surface cleaner which superheats a solution.
US 9516986 - cited for teaching a steam generator which superheats the fluid.
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