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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 7-34 in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: traction means for propelling the cleaning machine along the submerged surface in claim 17 which structure is interpreted as wheels and equivalents thereof.
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
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 30 is 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.
The term “relatively hard foam material” in claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively hard” 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. It is not clear as to what degree of hardness the foam material is to be compared to.
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.
Claims 17, 26, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamonby (GB 2528871).
Regarding Claim 17: Lamonby teaches a cleaning machine for cleaning a submerged surface, the cleaning machine comprising: a drive device and at least one cleaning head, the drive device including a pump, a pump inlet for receiving material cleaned from the submerged surface, and a pump outlet for output material (pg. 2, ll. 15-22), and traction means for propelling the cleaning machine along the submerged surface (pg. 3, ll. 11-13), wherein the at least one cleaning head includes multiple cleaning pods (Fig. 5, brushes) disposed forward of the drive device and forward of all traction means for propelling and steering the cleaning machine along the submerged surface in a forward direction of travel of the cleaning machine, and wherein the traction means is configured such that, in use, contact of the traction means with the surface is within a width cleaned by the at least one cleaning head (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 26: Lamonby further teaches wherein at least one of the cleaning pods includes a shroud or skirt (Fig. 1, Fairing) with a gap underneath to the submerged surface.
Regarding Claim 33: Lamonby further teaches wherein at least one support arrangement (Fig. 5, brush frame) extends from the drive device to support at least a part of the respective cleaning head.
Regarding Claim 34: Lamonby further teaches that the support arrangement connects to the drive device between front and rear traction means of the drive device (Fig. 5, brush frame linkage) and projects to connect the cleaning head.
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.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamonby (GB 2528871) as applied to Claim 17 above.
Regarding Claim 27: Lamonby teaches the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Lamonby does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the cleaning pods includes at least a forward of rearward pivot or swivel arrangement, or both a forward and rearward arrangement, such that the respective cleaning pod is enabled to pivot or swivel about a front to rear axis. However, Lamonby illustrates that the brushes are connected by a brush frame linkage (see Fig. 5). It is reasonably expected that such linkage would allow the brushes to pivot or swivel as claimed.
Regarding Claim 28: Lamonby teaches the elements of Claim 27 as discussed above, and further teaches at least one wheel or track directly or indirectly supporting at least one said cleaning pod (e.g., front wheel on Fig. 5).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamonby (GB 2528871) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20160072309, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 18: Lamonby teaches the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above, but is silent as to the pump is between front and rear traction means. However, Lee teaches a similar cleaning machine for cleaning a submerged surface, wherein a pump (Figs. 2 and 3, element 172) is provided between front and rear traction means (elements 120 and 300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning machine of Lamonby by placing the pump between front and rear traction means in order to suction water to facilitate removal of debris, as taught by Lee.
Regarding Claim 19: Lamonby teaches the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Lamonby teaches the pump is onboard the cleaning machine, but is silent as to the pump being an integral structural part of the drive device of part of a chassis or subchassis of the drive device. However, Lee further teaches that the pump is part of a chassis of the drive device (see Fig. 11) and is used to help collect foreign matter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning machine of Lamonby with the pump as part of the drive chassis in order to secure the pump to the cleaning machine as suggested by Lee.
Claims 29, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamonby (GB 2528871) as applied to Claim 26 above, and further in view of Evans (GB 2063059).
Regarding Claim 29: Lamonby teaches the elements of Claim 26 as discussed above. Lamonby teaches that the cleaning pods may be modular elements with different modules allowing cleaning of surface to be done by different processes (pg. 4, ll. 11-14), but does not expressly disclose the cleaning pod includes a body portion including foam material. However, Evans teaches a cleaning device for a submerged surface comprising a body portion including a foam material (Fig. 1, element 4) to provide sufficient cleaning to the surface while drying quickly after use (pg. 3, ll. 60-65). It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lamonby with a cleaning pod including a foam material since foam has been recognized in the prior art as a suitable cleaning material for the surface.
Regarding Claim 30: Lamonby and Evans teach the cleaning machine of Claim 30 as discussed above. Evans is cited for teaching a foam material. Evans teaches that the foam may be a synthetic plastic foam (pg. 1, ll. 58-62), which is well known to include foams having a hardness to some degree.
Regarding Claim 32: Lamonby and Evans teach the elements of Claim 29 as discussed above. Evans is cited for teaching a body portion comprising a foam material, but does not expressly disclose the body portion is replaceable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lamonby and Evans by providing a replaceable cleaning portion in order to ease the replacement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(D)).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamonby (GB 2528871) and Evans (GB 2063059) as applied to Claim 29, and further in view of Chamoux et al. (FR 2902355, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 31: Lamonby and Evans teach the elements of Claim 29 as discussed above. Evans is cited for teaching the foam material, but does not expressly disclose a wear resistant or polymer coating. However, Chamoux teaches that it is known to provide a polymeric coating on rigid foam cleaning elements in order to protect the foam cleaner from deterioration (second and third full paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning machine of Lamonby and Evans with a polymeric coating over the foam layer to protect the cleaning device underwater, as taught by Chamoux.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-25 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest the features of the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of Lamonby as outlined above. However, Lamonby does not teach or fairly suggest the cleaning device comprises magnet positioning/deployment means including an actuator assembly providing rotation positioning or deployment and/or retraction of at least one magnet as required by Claims 20-25. Lamonby does not teach or suggest wherein at least one of said cleaning pods includes a housing for a rotatable cleaning device and wherein the respective cleaning pod includes at least part of a pivot or swivel arrangement provided to allow the housing of the respective cleaning pod to pivot or swivel about a front to rear axis of the cleaning head or the cleaning machine, as required by Claim 35.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714