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 13-17 in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 17 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the wet cleaning". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not introduce a wet cleaning. For purposes of examination, the claim will be read as depending from Claim 15 which positively recites a wet cleaning.
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.
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (WO 2013/047074, machine translation referenced herein), and further in view of Strang (US 2015/0327742).
Regarding Claim 13: Yoshida teaches a surface cleaning method for effectively cleaning surfaces, while consuming reduced quantities of water, comprising:
a) applying one or more cleaning operations through cleaning modules that includes at least one of brushing with rigid means and collecting removed dirt (see abstract; Fig. 16); and
b) discharging, by a discharger module, static charges from a surface and persistent dirt residues thereon, thereby neutralizing the attraction between persistent dirt residues and said surface by discharging static charges therein, thereby enabling the detachment of said persistent dirt residues from said surface (pg. 9, third full paragraph).
Yoshida does not expressly disclose wherein a control module is configured to regulate the operation of the cleaning modules and the discharger module based on the condition of the surface and the extent of the persistent dirt residues, thereby providing a cleaning sequence that ensures effective cleaning with reduced water consumption. However, Strang teaches a vacuum apparatus comprising a control module configured to regulate the operation of the vacuum apparatus based on the condition of the surface and the extent of the dirt thereon [0037]. 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 method of Yoshida with a control module to regulate the operation of the cleaning and discharger modules based on the condition of the surface and the extent of the dirt in order to maximize the cleaning efficiency of the method, as suggested by Strang.
Regarding Claim 15: Yoshida and Strang teach the elements of Claim 13 as discussed above. Yoshida further teaches wherein the one or more cleaning operations includes collecting dirt residues by a collector module (see abstract; Fig. 16, element 30).
Regarding Claim 16: Yoshida further teaches wherein the discharging static charges are applied by streaming conductive air over said surface and the persistent dirt residues attached thereto (pg. 9, third full paragraph).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (WO 2013047074, machine translation referenced herein) and Strang (US 2015/0327742) as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Jansen (US 2009/0094780).
Regarding Claim 14: Yoshida and Strang teach the elements of Claim 13 as discussed above. Yoshida further teaches brushing of solidified dirt by a brush module, neutralizing the electric attraction between persistent dirt residues and said surface by discharging static charges stored therein by a discharger module; and brushing the discharged persistent dirt residues from said surface by a brush module (pg. 5, paragraph five; pg. 9, third full paragraph). Yoshida does not expressly disclose whether the brush modules are hard or soft. However, Jansen teaches that both a soft brush for delicate surfaces and a rigid brush for more aggressive cleaning can be used [0068]. 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 method of Yoshida by brushing the dirt with the rigid brush and with the soft brush after the dirt is discharged in order to provide more aggressive cleaning on the persistent dirt residues.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (WO 2013047074, machine translation referenced herein) and Strang (US 2015/0327742) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Gilbert et al. (US 2008/0281470).
Regarding Claim 17: Yoshida and Strang teach the elements of Claim 15 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose a wet cleaning is performed as claimed. However, Gilbert teaches a surface cleaning method wherein wet cleaning is performed by spraying water on the surface to remove more debris from the surface than with dry cleaning [0072]. 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 method of Yoshida and Strang with a wet cleaning step in order to remove more debris from the surface, as taught by Gilbert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zoell (US 4,751,759) teaches an appliance intended to remove dust from solid objects and comprises an ionization device (7) which is operatively associated with an incorporated air nozzle (1), which has an obliquely arranged, narrow, linear blowing slot (2) which serves to produce an air jet which sweeps over the surface to be cleaned at high velocity. The ionization device (7) produces positive as well as negative ions in the laminar air jet in order to neutralize the electrostatically-charged dust particles. An air suction nozzle (3) with a corresponding suction slot (4) is arranged at a short distance from the blowing slot (2) and is operatively associated with a flat brush (5) projecting from the appliance.
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