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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen (CN 208693192).
In regards to claim 1, Shen discloses
a scraper structure arranged in a cleaning channel for cleaning a mop, wherein the scraper structure comprises
a scraper holder (flat mop water squeezing device 100, fig. 1-4) and
a scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4) arranged on the scraper holder (flat mop water squeezing device 100, fig. 1-4), the scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4) comprises
a fixed end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) and a moving end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1), the fixed end is fixedly arranged on the scraper holder (flat mop water squeezing device 100, fig. 1-4), the moving end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) is provided with a water scraping part (lip 2a, fig. 3), and
PNG
media_image1.png
536
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the scraper holder (flat mop water squeezing device 100, fig. 1-4) further comprises a one-way limit structure (at least sleeve 1d and backers 1e, see fig. 3 - ann. 2); and
PNG
media_image1.png
536
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when the mop is subjected to water scraping relative to the scraper holder (flat mop water squeezing device 100, fig. 1-4), the one-way limit structure (at least sleeve 1d and backers 1e, see fig. 3 - ann. 2) is capable of limiting swing (description [0008]) of the moving end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) to cause the scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4) to scrape water from the mop,
[0008]: scraper blade (2) is strip-shaped, one long side part of the scraping plate 2 connected with the rotating 1, scraping the other long side part 2 has the acute angle of the lip 2a, 1 in the scraper 2 installed for extruding water component mounting sleeve 1d is provided with limiting scraping plate 2 swing upwards of the backer 1e. When the scraper 2 against the backer 1e, lip 2a on the working port 1a side of the inner side, scraper 2 other parts located on the outer side of a side surface of the working hole 1a, so can the scraper 2 in the flat mop cloth to extrude on the working head. When the scraper 2 against the backer 1e, lip 2a is inclined, so as to improve wiping efficiency and reduce friction.
and when the mop returns to its position relative to the scraper holder (flat mop water squeezing device 100, fig. 1-4), the moving end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) is capable of being driven to swing relative to the fixed end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) so as to reduce a resistance force of the scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4) on the mop.
In regards to claim 2, Shen discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 1, wherein the one-way limit structure (at least sleeve 1d and backers 1e, see fig. 3 - ann. 2) comprises a baffle (backers 1e, fig. 3; [0008]) arranged on the scraper holder (flat mop water squeezing device 100, fig. 1-4), and the scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4) abuts against the baffle (backers 1e, fig. 3) when the moving end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) is driven by the mop to scrape the water.
In regards to claim 11, Shen discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 2, wherein the baffle (backers 1e, fig. 3) or a surface of the baffle (backers 1e, fig. 3; [0008]) that is in contact with the moving end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) of the scraper is inclined in a direction opposite to the water scraping direction of the mop (see fig. 3 – ann. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
536
1301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Shen discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 1, wherein one side of the water scraping part (lip 2a, fig. 3) that gets away from the water scraping direction of the mop is inclined (see fig. 3 – ann. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
1301
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Shen discloses
a cleaning bucket (barrel body 200, fig. 1-2) with the scraper structure according to claim 1, comprising
a bucket body (see fig. 2 – ann. 1) internally provided with a cleaning channel (see fig. 2 – ann. 1), wherein the scraper structure is arranged in the cleaning bucket (see fig. 1-2).
PNG
media_image4.png
682
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 213216779).
In regards to claim 1, Huang discloses
a scraper structure arranged in a cleaning channel for cleaning a mop, wherein the scraper structure comprises
a scraper holder (extruding frame 5, fig. 2-7) and
a scraper arranged on the scraper holder (extruding frame 5, fig. 2-7), the scraper comprises
a fixed end (limiting seat 18, fig. 5-7) and a moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7), the fixed end (limiting seat 18, fig. 5-7) is fixedly arranged on the scraper holder (extruding frame 5, fig. 2-7), the moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7) is provided with a water scraping part (edge of the stroking plate 11), and
the scraper holder (extruding frame 5, fig. 2-7) further comprises a one-way limit structure (limiting notch 19, fig. 9); and
when the mop is subjected to water scraping relative to the scraper holder (extruding frame 5, fig. 2-7), the one-way limit structure (limiting notch 19, fig. 9) is capable of limiting swing of the moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7) to cause the scraper to scrape water from the mop, and when the mop returns to its position relative to the scraper holder (extruding frame 5, fig. 2-7), the moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7) is capable of being driven to swing relative to the fixed end (limiting seat 18, fig. 5-7) so as to reduce a resistance force of the scraper on the mop.
In regards to claim 7, Huang discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 1, wherein the fixed end (limiting seat 18, fig. 5-7) and the moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7) of the scraper are made of a hard material (rigid, structural material), and a flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7) is arranged between the fixed end (limiting seat 18, fig. 5-7) and the moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7) of the scraper.
In regards to claim 8, Huang discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 7, wherein the flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7) is soft rubber, a spring piece, or a spring (pressure spring 25, see fig. 6; [0150] of implementation examples).
In regards to claim 10, Huang discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 8, wherein a second flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7) is arranged on one side of the connecting part (lug 20, fig. 11) that gets away from the first flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7), and has a smaller thickness (when compressed further due to localized pressure) than the first flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Van Landingham (US PG Pub No. 20110099745).
In regards to claim 3, Shen discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose that the scraper is made of “a flexible material”.
Van Landingham, which also discloses a mop scraper/agitator, teaches a scraper that is flexible by being made of rubber:
[0040] A mop 23 is inserted into the mop compartment 20 during use of the bucket as shown in FIGS. 15 and 16.,.Referring to FIGS. 15 through 17, agitator brackets 17 supporting agitator blades 19a and 19b may be provided in compartment 20 to scrub the cleaning surfaces of the mop 23 and release the dirt off of the mop and into the cleaning solution…The brackets 17 may be supported other than as shown provided the agitator blades 19a, 19b extend into the compartment containing cleaning fluid and are disposed opposite to and face one another…The agitator blades 27 and fins 29 may be formed of molded plastic, rubber or other similar material…The agitator blades 19 also create turbulence in the cleaning solution that also frees dirt and debris from the mop.
Van Landingham and Shen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, mop scraping apparatuses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shen and provided scrapers that were made of an elastic material, such as rubber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 4, Shen as modified discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 3, wherein a groove (see fig. 3 – ann. 2) for reducing the deformation difficulty of the scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4) is provided between the fixed end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) and the moving end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) of the scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4).
PNG
media_image5.png
536
1301
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Shen as modified discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 4, wherein the groove is in a zigzag, wave, or strip shape (see fig. 3 – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
536
1301
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Shen as modified discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 5, wherein the groove is provided in one side of the scraper (scraper 2, fig. 1-4) that gets close (groove is adjacent) to the baffle (backers 1e, fig. 3).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Van Landignham (US PG Pub No. 20110099745).
In regards to claim 9, Huang discloses
the scraper structure according to claim 1, wherein the scraper is made of material,
a connecting part (lug 20, fig. 11) is arranged between the fixed end (limiting seat 18, fig. 5-7) and the moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7),
a first flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7) is arranged on one side of the connecting part (lug 20, fig. 11) that gets close to a water scraping direction of the mop, the one-way limit structure (limiting notch 19, fig. 9) is
a limit gap (see annotated fig. 7/9 – ann. 1) provided in a bottom of the first flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7),
PNG
media_image7.png
500
1392
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and when the scraper is flattened, the first flexible connector (elastic device 25, fig. 6-7) on two sides of the limit gap is squeezed to form a limitation on a swing direction of the moving end (stroking plate 11, fig. 5-7).
Huang fails to disclose the scraper being made of a flexible material. Van Landingham, which also discloses a mop scraper/agitator, teaches a scraper that is flexible by being made of rubber:
[0040] A mop 23 is inserted into the mop compartment 20 during use of the bucket as shown in FIGS. 15 and 16.,.Referring to FIGS. 15 through 17, agitator brackets 17 supporting agitator blades 19a and 19b may be provided in compartment 20 to scrub the cleaning surfaces of the mop 23 and release the dirt off of the mop and into the cleaning solution…The brackets 17 may be supported other than as shown provided the agitator blades 19a, 19b extend into the compartment containing cleaning fluid and are disposed opposite to and face one another…The agitator blades 27 and fins 29 may be formed of molded plastic, rubber or other similar material…The agitator blades 19 also create turbulence in the cleaning solution that also frees dirt and debris from the mop.
Van Landingham and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, mop scraping apparatuses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang and provided scrapers that were made of an elastic material, such as rubber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Fernandez (US PG Pub No. 20020162573).
In regards to claim 14, Shen discloses the scraper structure according to claim 1, but fails to further disclose comprising “a hand wash-free mop…a mop rod and a mop rotatably connected to an end part of the mop rod…a water scraping frame of the mop is sleeved on an outer side of the mop rod and is capable of being sleeved on the mop and moving back and forth along the mop to scrape water when the mop is rotated to be parallel to the mop rod, and the scraper structure is arranged in the water scraping frame.
Fernandez discloses a rotatable mop with mop rod (12), mop (16) that is rotatably connected at the collar (38) of the mop rod, with a water scraping frame (sleeve 34) on an outerside of the mop rod, sleeved on the rod (See fig. 6-7) and moving back and forth to scrape water (see fig. 6-9), the scraper (40) is arranged in the water scraping frame.
PNG
media_image8.png
695
442
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
701
438
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fernandez and Shen are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, means for wringing water from mops.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mop of Fernandez with the bucket of Shen, as a the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In this instance, Shen provided the scraping apparatus of attached to a bucket, and Fernandez provided a mop with a scaping apparatus mounted to it. to use these two individual apparatuses together would yield predictable results of removing water form a mop.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights