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
Claims 1 – 19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2024 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim set is objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2 – 19, “a scrubber-drier machine” should be “the scrubber-drier machine”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: resilient biasing means in claim at least claim 2 and guidance means in claim 18. A review of the specification has mapped the resilient biasing means to compression spring, 52 and 53.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 18 recites the scrubber drier configured as an autonomous scrubber drier machine with self-propulsion means and a guidance system for guiding the machine during a scrubbing task, however, the specification fails to even mention said limitations let alone describe the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that one of ordinary skill in the art can make and use it.
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.
Claims 5 and 18 are 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 5 recites the limitation “the traveling member may be displaced” in line 3. The limitation is vague in that it is not clear if the limitation is optional or required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “the traveling member is displaced”.
Claims 6 – 13 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 5
Claim 18 recites “self-propulsion means and a guidance system for guiding the machine during a scrubbing task”. The limitation invoked 112(f), however a review of the specification fails to describe the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that one of ordinary skill in the art can make and use it.
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, 14 – 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chignoli et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0289700 A1) in view of LEIKERMOSER (EP 2499953 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Chignoli teaches a scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1) comprising a base portion (Annotated Fig. 1) provided with one or more floor-facing work heads (brush-carrying heads, 4; Fig. 2) for scrubbing a floor surface along a working direction (Paragraph [0012]), a squeegee collector (wiping and vacuuming device, 6) disposed on the floor (Fig. 1) so as to trail behind the work head (4), the squeegee collector (6) being in fluid communication with a suction device (vacuuming device; Paragraph [0012]), and a collection tank for liquid drawn from the squeegee collector by the suction device (Paragraph [0002]), wherein the squeegee collector (6) has a transverse orientation (Fig. 2) and length (Fig. 2) sufficient to provide a collection path (path of fluid left by heads, 4; Paragraph [0002]) which spans the cleaning path provided by the work heads (4); the squeegee
PNG
media_image1.png
572
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
collector (6) is attached by a mounting (Paragraph [0012]) which permits limited transverse displacement of the squeegee connector either left or right away from a central home position (Paragraph [0021]).
Chignoli does not explicitly teach wherein the squeegee collector is attached to the base portion by a mounting which permits limited transverse displacement of the squeegee connector either left or right away from a central home position.
Leikermoser, however, teaches the squeegee collector (suction strip, 20) is attached to the base portion (brush box, 1) by a mounting (at bearing points, 26, 26’) which permits limited transverse displacement of the squeegee connector (20) either left (Fig. 5) or right (Fig. 3) away from a central home position (Fig. 4).
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 machine of Chignoli to further include the squeegee collector is attached to the base portion by a mounting which permits limited transverse displacement of the squeegee connector either left or right away from a central home position, as taught by Leikermoser, to allow the machine to engage with the floor from multiple angles, helping to clean corners, edges, and irregular surfaces more effectively, thus reducing the number of passes needed and resulting in speeding up the cleaning process.
Regarding Claim 14, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1) wherein the squeegee collector (6) has a generally arcuate form (Fig. 3) comprising front (1st curve of 6 as shown in Fig. 2). and rear (2nd curve of 6 as shown in Fig. 2) resilient strips and a roof portion (top portion of 6 as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1 ) wherein opposite outer end regions of the squeegee collector (6) are provided with wheels or rollers (circle portions on 6 as shown in Fig. 2 and 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1 ) wherein each wheel or roller has a generally vertical axis of rotation (see Fig. 1 and vertical axis in wheel @ 6) so that the wheels serve as bumpers in the event that the outer end regions impact an obstruction which tends to displace the squeegee collection transversely (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1 ) wherein a cleaning liquid delivery system is provided which serves to deliver a cleaning liquid from a reservoir to a floor surface in advance of, or under, the work head(6; Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 2 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chignoli et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0289700 A1) in view of LEIKERMOSER (EP 2499953 A1) and Hamline et al (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0025288 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Chignoli does not teach wherein the mounting is provided with resilient biasing means which acts to limit displacement and return the squeegee connector towards the home position after displacement.
Hamline, however, teaches wherein the mounting (squeegee mount assembly, 15) is provided with resilient biasing means (return spring, 32) which acts to limit displacement and return the squeegee connector (squeegee assembly, 25) towards the home position after displacement (Paragraph [0024]).
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 machine of Chignoli to further include the mounting is provided with resilient biasing means which acts to limit displacement and return the squeegee connector towards the home position after displacement, as taught by Hamline, to allow the machine to engage with the floor from multiple angles, helping to clean corners, edges, and irregular surfaces more effectively, thus reducing the number of passes needed and resulting in speeding up the cleaning process.
Regarding Claim 3, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1) of claim 2 as discussed above.
Chignoli as modified by Hamline teaches the resilient biasing means which limits displacement to the left and right (via return spring, 32) but does not explicitly teach one biasing element which limits displacement left and another biasing element which limits displacement right.
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 machine of Chignoli to further include one biasing element which limits displacement left and another biasing element which limits displacement right, as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1) of claim 2 as discussed above.
Chignoli does not teach wherein each biasing element comprises at least one compression spring.
Hamline, however, teaches a spring (32), but does not explicitly teach each biasing element comprises at least one compression spring.
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 machine of Chignoli to further include each biasing element comprises at least one compression spring, as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chignoli et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0289700 A1) in view of LEIKERMOSER (EP 2499953 A1) and Wiltshire (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0076894 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Chignoli does not teach the scrubber drier configured as a walk-behind hand guided machine, whereby the machine further comprises a generally elongate handle portion which has a connection at a lower end region thereof which permits the handle portion to pivot with respect to the base portion, and wherein the handle portion has an upper end region which has a grip for guiding the machine in use.
Wiltshire, however, teaches the scrubber drier (10) configured as a walk-behind hand guided machine (Fig. 1), whereby the machine (10) further comprises a generally elongate handle portion (12) which has a connection at a lower end region thereof (Fig. 1) which permits the handle portion (12) to pivot with respect to the base portion (23; Fig. 1), and wherein the handle portion (12) has an upper end region which has a grip (13) for guiding the machine in use (Fig. 1).
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 machine of Chignoli to further include the scrubber drier configured as a walk-behind hand guided machine, whereby the machine further comprises a generally elongate handle portion which has a connection at a lower end region thereof which permits the handle portion to pivot with respect to the base portion, and wherein the handle portion has an upper end region which has a grip for guiding the machine in use, as taught by Wiltshire, to provide a machine that can navigate tight spaces, narrow aisles, and areas with many obstacles such as ramps, furniture, or narrow doorways, thus preventing damage to a larger machine.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chignoli et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0289700 A1) in view of LEIKERMOSER (EP 2499953 A1) and Venard et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0237177 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Chignoli, as modified, teaches the scrubber-drier machine (floor washing-drying machine; Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Chignoli does not teach the scrubber drier configured as an autonomous scrubber drier machine with self-propulsion means and a guidance system for guiding the machine during a scrubbing task.
Vernard, however, teaches the scrubber drier (2) configured as an autonomous scrubber drier machine (Paragraph [0136]) with self-propulsion means (Paragraph [0108]) and a guidance system for guiding the machine during a scrubbing task (Paragraph [0136]).
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 machine of Chignoli to further include the scrubber drier configured as an autonomous scrubber drier machine with self-propulsion means and a guidance system for guiding the machine during a scrubbing task, as taught by Venard, to provide a machine that can increase efficiency and speed while proving labor savings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Although
Chignoli, as modified, by Leikermoser teach a scrubber-drier machine, the references alone or in combination fail to teach suggest or make obvious a transverse rod which is slidably received in a corresponding bore in a traveler member, so that the traveler member may be displaced transversely left or right along the rod.
Claims 6 – 13 are further objected to as dependents of objected claim 5.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent No. 10,368,709 B2 to Baertsch teaches an apparatus for cleaning a floor includes a housing, wheels by which the apparatus is adapted to move; a motive device for moving the apparatus, a steering mechanism, and a cleaning assembly including a cleaning unit and an offset mechanism adapted to move the cleaning unit to or from an offset position projecting beyond one lateral side of the apparatus. In another embodiment, an apparatus for cleaning a floor includes a housing, wheels by which the apparatus is adapted to move, a motive device for moving the apparatus, a steering mechanism, and a cleaning assembly including a cleaning unit and a swing mechanism indirectly linking the cleaning unit to the steering mechanism such that when the apparatus is in an operative mode, the cleaning unit reorients its position in synchronization with the path of travel of the apparatus. Optionally, a lifting device may raise and lower the cleaning assembly.
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