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 § 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, 3-9, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2007/0124879) in view of Charette (US 2018/0014632) and Njenga (US 2019/0059212).
As to claim 1, Foss (Embodiment of Fig. 2) includes a padel turf sand brush (100) for maintenance of indoor or outdoor padel turfs (100 is capable of sweeping sand off of surface, such as a padel turf sand brush), comprising a base member (The platform bristles 110 are on), wherein the base member comprises a top surface (The uppermost surface of the base member) and a bottom surface (The lowermost surface of the base member), wherein the base member further has a main direction (The forward direction) defined as the direction of travel when the brush is in use, and a secondary direction (The direction into the page) defined as being perpendicular to the main direction wherein the main direction and the secondary direction are substantially in the horizontal plane when the brush is in use, wherein the brush further comprises a brush shaft (102) arranged to the base member, characterized in that the brush comprises a plurality of brush portions (110), arranged to the bottom surface of the base member, wherein the each brush portion comprises a plurality of bristles (para 2), and wherein each brush portion extend in the secondary direction and distributed with a distance in the main direction so that the padel turf sand is trapped between a first and a second of said plurality of elongated brush portions during movement of the brush in the main direction for distribution of sand from areas with excess of sand to areas with a shortage of sand (Sand would be trapped between two different rows of brush portions).
Foss does not include wherein the base member and the brush shaft are interconnected by means of a connecting part, the brush has a weight of at least 10 kg, and the brush portions as elongated and elongated in the secondary direction.
Charette (Fig. 1) includes a brush (10) having a base member (18), a brush shaft (12), and a plurality of elongated brush portions (26), wherein the base member and the brush shaft are interconnected by means of a connecting part (24) [para 36]. The connecting part permits the brush shaft to pivot relative to the base member.
Njenga (Fig. 1-2) includes a brush (10) having a base member (12), a brush shaft (16), and a plurality of elongated brush portions (40; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to modify Foss so that the base member and the brush shaft are interconnected by means of a connecting part, the connecting part allowing the brush shaft to pivot relative to the base member, as taught by Charette, allowing the brush to clean hard to reach areas.
It would have been an obvious and a matter of routine optimization to modify the weight of the brush to be a certain weight, in order to provide the necessary force of sweeping to control the sand.
It would have been an obvious to modify the brush to be elongated (intended as in the secondary direction), as taught by Njenga, in order to sweep a great amount of sand at one time.
As to claim 3, wherein the length of the bristles is shorter than the distance between the first and the second elongated brush portion (Fig. 2) for providing said transfer effect of sand in front of the first and the second of said plurality of elongated brush portion in the direction of travel.
As to claim 4, Foss does not include wherein the length of the bristles is 15-40 mm, or 25-35mm. It would have been an obvious and a matter of routine optimization to modify bristle length to be a certain length, in order to sweep sand to the level of effectiveness desired.
As to claim 5, Foss does not include wherein the distance between the first and the second elongated brush portion is 30-150 mm or 41-60 mm. It would have been an obvious and a matter of routine optimization to modify the distance between the first and the second elongated brush portion to be a certain distance, in order to sweep the necessary amount of sand at one time so as to avoid straining the operator.
As to claim 6, Foss does not include wherein the weight of the padel turf sand brush is between 10 and 40 kg, or between 13 and 30 kg, or between 14 and 25 kg. It would have been an obvious and a matter of routine optimization to modify the weight of the brush to be a certain weight, in order to provide the necessary force of sweeping to control the sand.
As to claim 7, wherein the plurality of elongated brush portions comprise at least three elongated brush portions (3 brush portions 100 are there; Fig. 2), preferably at least four elongated brush portions or more preferably more than five elongated brush portions, or about seven elongated brush portions (Due to the term “preferably”, more than three brush portions is not required), for trapping said sand between two adjacent elongated brush portions so as to transfer the sand between elongated brush portions in the direction of travel.
As to claim 8, Foss does not include wherein the base member has a rectangular shape, and wherein the width of the base member is 400-500 mm and the length of the base member is 700-800 mm, for providing an interaction between the brush and the artificial grass of the padel turf. It would have been an obvious and a matter of routine optimization to modify the width and length of the base member to be a certain width and length, in order to sweep the necessary amount of sand at one time so as to avoid straining the operator.
As to claim 9, Charette provides wherein the connecting part at a first (top) end is connected to a first (bottom) end of the brush shaft, and wherein the connecting part at a second (bottom) end is further connected to a front (left) portion of the base member in the direction of travel (connection occurs in the forward direction).
As to claim 15, wherein the base member is rigid (The materials used include wood, metals, and plastics; para 14).
As to claim 21, Foss (Embodiment of Fig. 2) includes a brush (100) for maintenance of indoor and outdoor padel turfs (100 is capable of sweeping sand off of surface, such as a padel turf sand brush), comprising a base member (The platform bristles 110 are on), wherein the base member comprises a top surface (The uppermost surface of the base member) and a bottom surface (The lowermost surface of the base member), wherein the base member is arranged horizontally when being used, wherein the base member further has a main direction (The forward direction) defined as the direction of travel when the brush is in use, and a secondary direction (The direction into the page) defined as being perpendicular to the main direction, wherein the main direction and the secondary direction are substantially in the horizontal plane when the brush is in use, wherein the brush further comprises a brush shaft (102) arranged to the base member, wherein the brush further comprises a first and a second brush portion (110), arranged to the bottom surface of the base member, wherein the first and the second brush portion comprises a plurality of bristles (para 2), and wherein the first and the second brush portion extend (have a length) in the secondary direction, and wherein the first and the second brush portion are distributed (have a length) in the main direction, wherein the first and the second elongated brush portion interact when the brush is in use by being moved on top of the surface of the padel turf, such that the padel turf sand is transferred from areas of the padel turf having too much sand to areas of the padel turf having too little sand, as some of the sand being brushed stays in front, in the direction of travel, of the first and the second elongated brush portion for a certain period of time (The brush is able to provide that outcome).
Foss does not include wherein the base member and the brush shaft are interconnected by means of a connecting part, and the brush portions as elongated and elongated in the secondary direction.
Charette (Fig. 1) includes a brush (10) having a base member (18), a brush shaft (12), and a plurality of elongated brush portions (26), wherein the base member and the brush shaft are interconnected by means of a connecting part (24) [para 36]. The connecting part permits the brush shaft to pivot relative to the base member.
Njenga (Fig. 1-2) includes a brush (10) having a base member (12), a brush shaft (16), and a plurality of elongated brush portions (40; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to modify Foss so that the base member and the brush shaft are interconnected by means of a connecting part, the connecting part allowing the brush shaft to pivot relative to the base member, as taught by Charette, allowing the brush to clean hard to reach areas.
It would have been an obvious to modify the brush to be elongated, as taught by Njenga, in order to sweep a great amount of sand at one time.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2007/0124879) in view of Charette (US 2018/0014632) and Njenga (US 2019/0059212), and further in view of McGoldrick (US 2,126,023) and Hoff (US 2016/0128462).
As to claim 2, Foss does not include wherein the brush further comprises a collection container detachably arranged to the base member, to collect litter and residues from the turf.
McGoldrick includes a brush having a collection container (4) arranged to a base member (1), to collect litter and residues from the turf (page 1, right column, lines 44-47).
Hoff includes a collection container (14) detachable from a base member (13) [para 32].
It would have been obvious to modify Foss so that a collection container arranged to the base member, for the collection of litter, residues, among others, as taught by McGoldrick, in order to clean up dirt more efficiently, and to modify the connection between the collection container and the base member to be detachable, as taught by Hoff, in order to permit the container to be stored separately from the brush for separate use.
Claims 10-14 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2007/0124879) in view of Charette (US 2018/0014632) and Njenga (US 2019/0059212), and further in view of Spangberg (US 2015/0096593).
As to claim 10, Foss does not include a first bumper arranged at a first corner of the base member, and a second bumper arranged at a second corner of the base member, for preventing the base member to collide into glass walls of the padel court when in use.
Spangberg (Fig. 2) includes a brush (100; para 24) having a base member (102; para 24), a first bumper (a first wheel 108) at a first corner of the base member, a second bumper (a second wheel 108) at a second corner of the base member, and a third bumper (a third wheel 108) at a third corner of the base member.
It would have been obvious to modify Foss to have a first bumper arranged at a first corner of the base member, and a second bumper arranged at a second corner of the base member, for
preventing the base member to collide into glass walls of the padel court when in use, as taught by Spangberg, in order to prevent damage to walls nearby (para 28) and the brush.
As to claim 11, Spangberg provides a third bumper arranged at a third corner of the base member, as discussed in claim 10 above. Adding a fourth bumper arranged at a fourth corner of the base member, for preventing the base member to collide into the glass walls of the padel court when in use, would have been obvious, in view of Spangberg, due to it teaching the idea of a bumper on multiple corners of the base member. Adding a bumper on any corner is logical because the corner is the feature that causes damage to surrounding walls or the brush.
As to claim 12, Spangberg provides the brush further comprising a first wheel arranged at a first corner on the top surface of the base member, and a second wheel arranged at a second corner on the top surface of the base member, for the first and the second wheel to function as transportation means for the brush when the base member is tipped over from the horizontal position to an at least partly vertical position, so that the base member rests on the first and the second wheel (Wheels 108 permit the base to roll on the cleaning surface no matter the base’s orientation; para 28), as discussed in claim 10 above.
As to claim 13, Spangberg provides wherein the brush further comprises a third wheel arranged at a third corner on the top surface of the base member, as discussed in claim 10 above. Adding a fourth wheel arranged at a fourth corner on the top surface of the base member, for the third and the fourth wheel to function as transportation means for the brush when the base member is tipped over 90° from the horizontal position to a vertical position (Wheels 108 permit the base to roll on the cleaning surface no matter the base’s orientation; para 28), so that the base member rests on the third and the fourth wheel, would have been obvious, in view of Spangberg, due to it teaching the idea of a bumper on multiple corners of the base member. Adding a bumper on any corner is logical because the corner is the feature that causes damage to surrounding walls or the brush.
As to claim 14, Spangberg provides the first, second, third and fourth wheel function as bumpers, for avoiding collisions into glass walls of the padel court when in use (para 28).
As to claim 22, the claim is a combination of claims 1 and 12. See the above rejection of these claims.
As to claim 23, the claim is a segment of claim 7. See the claim 7 rejection above.
As to claim 24, the claim is equivalent to a segment of claim 7 by including the option of three brushes. See the claim 7 rejection above.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2007/0124879) in view of Charette (US 2018/0014632) and Njenga (US 2019/0059212), and further in view of Anderson (US 2004/0250365).
As to claim 16, Foss does not include wherein the brush shaft comprises a telescopic function.
Anderson includes a brush (10) having a base member (14), a brush shaft (11), and a plurality of elongated brush portions (38, 39), and wherein the brush shaft comprises a telescopic function (The brush shaft 11 has section 21 and 22 that telescope to shorten and extend the length of 11; para 26).
It would have been obvious to modify the brush shaft to comprise a telescopic function, as taught by Anderson, allowing the brush to clean hard to reach areas.
As to claim 19, Foss does not include wherein the brush further comprises a first wheel and a second wheel and wherein the first and second wheel function as transportation means for the brush when the base member is in the at least partly vertical position.
Spangberg (Fig. 2) includes a brush (100; para 24) having a base member (102; para 24), a first bumper (a first wheel 108) at a first corner of the base member, a second bumper (a second wheel 108) at a second corner of the base member, and a third bumper (a third wheel 108) at a third corner of the base member, wherein the first and second wheel function as transportation means for the brush when the base member is in the at least partly vertical position (Wheels 108 permit the base to roll on the cleaning surface no matter the base’s orientation; para 28).
It would have been obvious to modify Foss to have a first bumper (wheel) arranged at a first corner of the base member, and a second bumper (wheel) arranged at a second corner of the base member, and wherein the first and second wheel function as transportation means for the brush when the base member is in the at least partly vertical position, as taught by Spangberg, in order to prevent damage to walls nearby and the brush.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2007/0124879) in view of Njenga (US 2019/0059212) and Vosbikian (US 2009/0172903).
As to claim 17, A method for redistributing sand at a padel turf (The brush is capable of doing that), using a padel turf sand brush (100) comprising a plurality of brush portions (110) arranged to a bottom surface (The lowermost surface of the base member) of a base member (The platform bristles 110 are on) wherein each brush portion comprises a plurality of bristles (para 2),
Foss does not include the brush having a weight of at least 10 kg, and the brush portions as elongated, and the method comprising the steps of:
-transporting the brush onto the padel turf while having the base member in an at least partly vertical orientation,
- tipping the base member into a substantially horizontal orientation coinciding with a surface of the padel turf, -moving the brush on the padel turf along a main direction so that sand is trapped between a first and a second of the plurality of brush portions for distributing sand from areas with excess of sand to areas with shortage of sand.
Njenga (Fig. 1-2) includes a brush (10) having a base member (12), a brush shaft (16), and a plurality of elongated brush portions (40; Fig. 6).
Vosbikian (Fig. 1) includes a brush (1) having a base member (8), a brush shaft (2), and a plurality of elongated brush portions (44), wherein the base member and the brush shaft are interconnected by means of a connecting part (10) [para 15-16], and a method for redistributing sand at a padel turf (The brush is capable of doing that), the method comprising the steps of:
-transporting the brush onto the padel turf (The brush may be used to sweep sand on padel turf because it is for sweeping a soiled surface. Since the brush is for sweeping a surface, the orientation of the surface to be cleaned, such as horizontal, vertical, or sloped, would not matter; para 18) while having the base member in an at least partly vertical orientation (The vertical orientation is seen in Fig. 3, which is enabled by attaching the brush shaft 2 into locking clamp 15; para 19),
- tipping the base member into a substantially horizontal orientation coinciding with a surface (32) of the padel turf (The vertical orientation is seen in Fig. 3), -moving the brush on the padel turf along a main direction (The forward direction) so that sand is trapped between a first and a second of the plurality of brush portions for distributing sand from areas with excess of sand to areas with shortage of sand (Any sand on the surface would be trapped between the brush portions).
It would have been an obvious and a matter of routine optimization to modify the weight of the brush to be a certain weight, in order to provide the necessary force of sweeping to control the sand.
It would have been an obvious to modify the brush to be elongated, as taught by Njenga, in order to sweep a great amount of sand at one time.
It would have been an obvious to modify the method of brushing to include the steps of: transporting the brush onto the padel turf while having the base member in an at least partly vertical orientation, tipping the base member into a substantially horizontal orientation coinciding with a surface of the padel turf, and moving the brush on the padel turf along a main direction so that sand is trapped between a first and a second of the plurality of brush portions for distributing sand from areas with excess of sand to areas with shortage of sand, as taught by Vosbikian, in order to permit greater ease of cleaning with the brush for both vertical and horizontal surfaces.
As to claim 18, Vosbikian provides further comprising the step of:
- tipping the base member back into an at least partly vertical orientation (The base member would be moved between the horizontal and vertical orientation of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 depending on if the surface being cleaned is horizontal or vertical), transporting the brush away from the padel turf while having the base member in the at least partly vertical orientation (When brushing is complete or if one is taking a break from cleaning, the brush would be moved [transported] away from the surface being cleaned).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2, Applicant argues that the examiner’s interpretation of “substantially elongated in the secondary direction” in claim 1, line 2 is false.
The reference combination is intended to show that since the base reference does not show any elongation of the brush portion in the secondary direction, a secondary reference would be required to show that elongation in that direction is an obvious feature. The office action was clear enough in providing a clue that the secondary reference has the feature disclosed. Applicant would not be too challenged in comprehending the point of the rejection. What direction is the brush of the secondary reference elongated in? (The secondary direction). Therefore, adding in elongation in the secondary direction is what did happen in the combination.
On page 2-3, Applicant argues that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight reasoning by using non-analogous fields of endeavor.
In response to applicant's argument that the secondary brushes are is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, each reference is a broom that sweeps the floor. Any of them are able to sweep sand and just about anything, making them in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art can understand how modify one broom using the knowledge gained from learning about another broom.
On page 3-10, Applicant argues that there was no adequate motivation to combine the references.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, I provided a motivation to combine the references. Painstaking effort was done to find the top, most similar references out there (no junk). The references Foss, Charette, and Njenga reference are located in the CPC zone of A46B 5, and that is the area concerning brush bodies with handles while they each clean the floor while the user is standing up, therefore, the references are quite similar and can be combined.
On page 4, Applicant argues that it would not have been routine optimization to change the length and spacing amount of the bristles or the base member, and to change the mass of a part of the broom.
Without evidence in the Specification regarding criticality of a number, it is always considered routine optimization (with a motivation) to modify the number, as shown in MPEP 2144.05. The reference, Foss was used because the bristles are spaced at a multiplier times the bristle width. There is a large spacing between each bristle group in both the application (See Fig. 4) and Foss (Fig. 2). The reference’s bristles are the same structurally as the application’s bristles (no real difference other than SI units). There can be reason to modify bristle dimensions in a broom. Whether the bristles are long or short, each provide a certain advantage. Modifying the mass of the broom to be high or low can also give advantage. For example, a greater mass gives greater stability to the broom and a lower mass makes sweeping easier. In addition, it is routine in the field to modify these numbers. Also, arguing that the broom can’t function equally well to the application’s broom would be unsuccessful because both brooms are structurally identical other than their SI units. They even look almost identical at the base of the broom. Modifying handle or the joint between the handle and the base can be done. Handles are extremely common in the field of brushes and joints as well. There is an abundance of reasoning to modify a handle and joint in references within A46B (brushes) [standard combination at the USPTO].
On page 4, Applicant argues that the sand would not be trapped between each brush during brushing (claim 1, lines 11-15).
Not all of the sand would pass through the brushes during sweeping. Otherwise, sweeping would not have even happened because all sand would pass through all brushes. Sand momentarily trapped between the brushes is still sand trapped. Also, why would it not be possible for a person of ordinary skill to modify the bristle spacing for many obvious reasons? That would on its own provide sand as trapped.
On page 5, Applicant argues that the broom of Foss can’t distribute sand as claimed in claim 1, line 15.
Sweeping sand around is the same as “distribution of sand from areas with excess of sand to areas with a shortage of sand”. The broom of Foss is able to do that. Additionally, there are multiple points made about how well Foss can sweep sand compared to how well the application would. The structure of both brooms are very similar so why can’t each broom sweep a certain amount of sand anywhere? All that matters is if the broom has the ability to sweep debris, and sand is one type of debris capable of being swept.
On page 6-7, Applicant argues about the benefits of the claimed element masses to claim that routine optimization isn’t obvious.
Applicant has not given any evidence in the Specification to support the conclusion that a particular mass is superior to all the others, which is required in MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights