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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits of claims 1 – 3, 5 and 7 – 16. Claims 4, 6 and 17 – 20 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1 – 2, 5, 7 – 12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0258287 A1) in view of Hirose (JPH10156980 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Shin teaches a mop system (mop tool, 1) for cleaning clean rooms, comprising a map holder (cleaning head, 100) arranged and adapted to releasably hold a mop cover (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the mop holder (100) comprises an aramid fiber- reinforced and/or carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (Paragraph [0034]); and a mop handle (stick, 200), the mop handle (200) comprises at least one tubular mop handle section (Fig. 1).
Shin does not teach the handle comprising an aramid fiber-reinforced and/or carbon fiber- reinforced plastic.
Hirose, however, teaches the tubular body comprising an aramid fiber-reinforced (Paragraph [0012]) and/or carbon fiber- reinforced plastic (Paragraphs [0001] – [0002] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include the tubular body comprising an aramid fiber-reinforced and/or carbon fiber- reinforced plastic, as taught by Hirose, to provide a tubular body that is lightweight and has high crush strength.
Regarding Claim 2, Shin teaches the mop holder according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Shin further teaches the mop holder (100) has a rectangular basic shape (Fig. 1) having a length and a width as shown in Fig. 1.
Shin does not explicitly teach the mop holder has a length in the range of 35 to 55 cm and a width in the range of 8 to 20 cm; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to explicitly teach a length in the range of 35 to 55 cm and a width in the range of 8 to 20 cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Shin teaches a mop system (mop tool, 1) wherein the mop system is heat-resistant to 140°C, and/or, resistant to cleaning and/or disinfecting agents (Shin teaches the cleaning head, 100 comprises carbon fibers, aramid fibers – both of which are known for withstanding temperatures of up to 140 degrees Celsius; thus is inherent in the material properties).
Regarding Claim 7, Shin teaches the mop holder according to claim 6, as discussed above.
Shin does not explicitly teach the aramid fiber-reinforced and/or carbon fiber-reinforced plastic of the mop handle and/or of the at least one tubular mop handle section comprises plastic material selected from a group consisting of thermosets, epoxy resins, thermoplastics, and mixtures thereof; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include the aramid fiber-reinforced and/or carbon fiber-reinforced plastic of the mop handle and/or of the at least one tubular mop handle section comprises plastic material selected from a group consisting of thermosets, epoxy resins, thermoplastics, and mixtures thereof, as claimed, 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 of the handle (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 8, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) wherein the at least one tubular mop handle section (200) has a rounded cross-sectional shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) the mop handle (200) comprising a plurality of mop handle sections (Paragraph [0063]) that are movable telescopically relative to one another (Figs. 4A and B).
Regarding Claim 10, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1), the plurality of mop handle sections (Paragraph [0063]; Figs. 4A and B) comprising at least one inner mop handle section (210) and at least one outer mop handle section (400) which receives the at least one inner mop handle section (210) at least in sections (Figs. 4A and B).
Regarding Claim 11, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) according to claim 10, as discussed above.
Shin does not teach the at least one inner mop handle section has a different cross-sectional shape than the at least one outer mop handle section; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to explicitly teach the at least one inner mop handle section has a different cross-sectional shape than the at least one outer mop handle section, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 12, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) further comprising a locking device (control holding member, 430) which has at least one holding member (push button, 230) which is movable transversely to the plurality of mop handle sections (Figs. 4A and B) and which, in a holding position (positioning hole, 411; Fig 4A), holds at least one mop handle section (210) in the a longitudinal direction (Figs. 4A and B), in a fixed position relative to at least one other mop handle section (400) and which, in a release position, permits a translational movement (T) of the at least one mop handle section (210) relative to the at least one other mop handle section (400) in the longitudinal direction (Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Shin teaches a mop handle (200) for a mop system (Fig. 1), for cleaning clean rooms (Fig. 1), comprising; at least one inner mop handle section (210) and at least one outer mop handle section (400) which receives the at least one inner mop handle section (210) at least in sections, and a locking device (control holding member, 430) which has at least one holding member (push button, 230) which is movable transversely to the plurality of mop handle sections (Figs. 4A and B) and which, in a holding position (positioning hole, 411; Fig 4A), holds at least one mop handle section (210) in the a longitudinal direction (Figs. 4A and B), in a fixed position relative to at least one other mop handle section (400) and which, in a release position, permits a translational movement (T) of the at least one mop handle section (210) relative to the at least one other mop handle section (400) in the longitudinal direction (Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 20, Shin teaches a kit of parts, comprising a mop holder (100), according to one of claims 1 further comprising a flat mop cover (Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 13 – 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0258287 A1) in view of Hirose (JPH10156980 A) and Resh (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0009099 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) wherein the locking device (control holding member, 430) comprises at least one support section (431) fastened to an outer mop handle section in the a longitudinal direction (Fig. 4B).
Shin does not explicitly teach at least one support section on which at least one pretensioning mechanism, is supported; which forces the at least one holding member against an inner mop handle section and/or; on which at least one counter-stop is fastened, which has at least in sections an inclined, wedge surface on which the at least one holding member is guided in the a radial direction and/or the longitudinal direction.
Resh, however, teaches at least one support section (3) on which at least one pretensioning mechanism (spring element, 9), is supported (Fig. 2a); which forces the at least one holding member (11) against an inner mop handle section and/or (Fig. 2a); on which at least one counter-stop is fastened, which has at least in sections an inclined, wedge surface on which the at least one holding member is guided in the a radial direction and/or the longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further explicitly include at least one pretensioning mechanism, as claimed, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 14, Shin, as modified, teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) wherein the locking device (430) comprises at least one actuating part movable (Paragraph [0063) relative to the outer mop handle section (Figs. 4A and B), which is adapted and arranged to displace the at least one holding member (230) between the holding position and the release position (Paragraph [0063).
Regarding Claim 15, Shin, as modified, teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) of claim 13 as discussed above.
Shin does not explicitly teach the locking device comprises a sliding wedge, which is held stationary relative to the outer mop handle section in a circumferential direction and movable in the radial direction and which is guided on an, inner contour of the at least one actuating part such that in a first relative position of the at least one actuating part to the sliding wedge, the sliding wedge forces the at least one holding member against the pretensioning mechanism into the release position, and that in a second relative position of the at least one actuating part to the sliding wedge, the pretensioning mechanism brings the at least one holding member into the holding position, wherein the pretensioning mechanism presses the sliding wedge against the inner contour.
Resh, however, teaches the locking device (Fig. 12c) comprises a sliding wedge (11), which is held stationary relative to the outer mop handle section in a circumferential direction (Fig. 2a) and movable in the radial direction (Fig. 2a) and which is guided on an inner contour of the at least one actuating part (7) such that in a first relative position of the at least one actuating part (7) to the sliding wedge (11), the sliding wedge (11) forces the at least one holding member (7) against the pretensioning mechanism (9) into the release position (relaxed; Paragraph [0087]), and that in a second relative (unrelaxed; Paragraph [0087]) position of the at least one actuating part (7) to the sliding wedge (11), the pretensioning mechanism (9) brings the at least one holding member (7) into the holding position (Paragraph [0087]), wherein the pretensioning mechanism (9) presses the sliding wedge (11) against the inner contour (Fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include the locking device comprises a sliding wedge, which is held stationary relative to the outer mop handle section in a circumferential direction and movable in the radial direction and which is guided on an, inner contour of the at least one actuating part such that in a first relative position of the at least one actuating part to the sliding wedge, the sliding wedge forces the at least one holding member against the pretensioning mechanism into the release position, and that in a second relative position of the at least one actuating part to the sliding wedge, the pretensioning mechanism brings the at least one holding member into the holding position, wherein the pretensioning mechanism presses the sliding wedge against the inner contour, as taught by Resh, to provide an improved telescopic pole attachment for cleaning tools.
Regarding Claim 16, Shin, as modified, teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) of claim 13 as discussed above.
Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one holding member has at least one gripping coating which is arranged on an inner surface facing the at least one mop handle section, wherein the at least one holding member has a support body to which the at least one gripping coating is fastened, and/or, which cooperates with the sliding wedge and/or the pretensioning mechanism.
Resh, however, teaches the at least one holding member (7) is arranged on an inner surface facing the at least one mop handle section (Fig. 2a), wherein the at least one holding member (7) has a support body (body of 7), and/or, which cooperates with the sliding wedge (11) and/or the pretensioning mechanism (9; Fig. 2c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include the at least one holding member has at least one gripping coating which is arranged on an inner surface facing the at least one mop handle section, wherein the at least one holding member has a support body to which the at least one gripping coating is fastened, and/or, which cooperates with the sliding wedge and/or the pretensioning mechanism our, as taught by Resh, to provide an improved telescopic pole attachment for cleaning tools.
Resh does not explicitly teach gripping coating; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include gripping coating, as claimed, 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 of the handle (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 18, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) of claim 17 as discussed above.
Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one holding member has at least one gripping coating which is arranged on an inner surface facing the at least one mop handle section, wherein the at least one holding member has a support body to which the at least one gripping coating is fastened, and/or, which cooperates with the sliding wedge and/or the pretensioning mechanism.
Resh, however, teaches the at least one holding member (7) is arranged on an inner surface facing the at least one mop handle section (Fig. 2a), wherein the at least one holding member (7) has a support body (body of 7), and/or, which cooperates with the sliding wedge (11) and/or the pretensioning mechanism (9; Fig. 2c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include the at least one holding member has at least one gripping coating which is arranged on an inner surface facing the at least one mop handle section, wherein the at least one holding member has a support body to which the at least one gripping coating is fastened, and/or, which cooperates with the sliding wedge and/or the pretensioning mechanism our, as taught by Resh, to provide an improved telescopic pole attachment for cleaning tools.
Resh does not explicitly teach gripping coating; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include gripping coating, as claimed, 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 of the handle (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0258287 A1) in view of Hirose (JPH10156980 A) and Pfennig (EP 3318168 A2).
Regarding Claim 3, Shin teaches the mop system (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shin does not explicitly teach the mop holder comprises at least one holding wing, the at least one holding wing has a longitudinal rib which is curved in particular convexly towards the an upper side of the mop holder, and wherein the longitudinal rib extends from a flat section to the upper side.
Pfennig, however, teaches the mop holder (Fig. 1) comprises at least one holding wing (4), the at least one holding wing (4) has a longitudinal rib (15) which is curved in particular convexly towards the an upper side of the mop holder (Fig. 2), and wherein the longitudinal rib (15) extends from a flat section to the upper side (Fig. 2).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mop holder of Shin to further include at least one holding wing, the at least one holding wing has a longitudinal rib which is curved in particular convexly towards the an upper side of the mop holder, and wherein the longitudinal rib extends from a flat section to the upper side, as taught by Pfennig, to provide a system that eff3ectibely hold the cover in place.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated July 16, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Hirose.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights