DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Discussion of “Integrate” Definition
In the Arguments section of this office action, the examiner cites the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “integrate”. “Integrate” is a well-known term in the English language, and the examiner’s presentation of this definition of “integrate” is only to aid discussion of the examiner’s position. It is noted that the examiner’s actual rejections are not modified by simply presenting this definition for discussion purposes in the Arguments section.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: the first line of claim 1 recites “…for cleaning flat vertical surface, wherein…”, but this language reads awkwardly because there is no indefinite article “a” before “flat”. It was presumed that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to write “…for cleaning a flat vertical surface, wherein…”. 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 a claim limitation is “an in-brush dispenser configured to dispense or spray the cleaning fluid” in lines 5-6 of claim 1, and such language is considered to refer to the incorporated-by-reference dispenser discussed in Par. [0063] of applicant’s specification. Such a claim limitation is “a separator configured to take in an air-water mixture…and separating the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture” in lines 12-14 of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “a separator configured to take in an air-water mixture…and separating the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The separator is simply illustrated as a box in Figure 1. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/063452 by Turner in view of CN104433946 by Zhang.
With regard to claim 1, Turner teaches a system for cleaning surfaces, wherein the system comprises a reservoir (a portion of body 12 below filtration system 58 when looking at Figure 1) that stores cleaning water (item 16 in Figure 1; reads on cleaning fluid), a first pump (item 118 in Figure 6) for pumping water from the reservoir such that the pumped water can be used to perform cleaning of surfaces, an in-brush nozzle (item 50 in Figure 3B) for dispensing the water on to-be-cleaned surfaces, a brush (comprising bristles 40 in Figure 3B), a wiper comprising a wiping surface (item 52 in Figure 3B) that is made of flexible silicone rubber and is configured to be in contact with to-be-cleaned surfaces, a wiper-integrated suction (comprising inlet 46 in Figure 3B) for sucking a mixture of dirty water and air towards an air-water separator (comprising item 80 in Figures 1, 7A, and 7B) that separates the air from the dirty water, a filtration system (item 58 in Figure 1) for filtering the dirty water to produce filtered water, and a vacuum pump (the left pump 70 in Figure 5; reads on suction pump) mounted in the system and configured to suck air from the air-water separator and exhaust said sucked air in atmosphere through an exhaust (pages 13-23).
Applicant’s limitation specifying that the system is for cleaning a “flat vertical surface” specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The system of Turner is structurally capable of being used to clean a flat vertical surface. In the system of Turner, the in-brush nozzle, brush, and wiping surface are attached to a handpiece (item 30 in Figures 1 and 3B), and this handpiece is structurally capable of being held by a user and used to clean a flat vertical surface.
Applicant’s limitations specifying that the brush is “for dispensing the cleaning fluid on the flat vertical surface”, “scrubbing the cleaning fluid”, and “agitating dirt” specify intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. The system of Turner is structurally capable of having the brush spread water across to-be-cleaned surfaces during the cleaning of surfaces, and therefore, the brush is considered to be structurally capable of dispensing water onto a to-be-cleaned surfaces. In the system of Turner, the brush is structurally capable of scrubbing water on to-be-cleaned surfaces, and the brush is structurally capable of displacing (reads agitating) dirt on to-be-cleaned surfaces.
Applicant’s limitation specifying that sucking contaminated or dirty cleaning fluid is “to avoid spillage or running of cleaning fluid down the flat vertical surface” specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The wiper-integrated suction of Turner is structurally capable of sucking a mixture of dirty water and air towards an air-water separator and away from a cleaned surface, and the wiper-integrated suction is thus considered to be structurally capable of sucking said mixture off of a hard flat vertical surface such that spillage or running of cleaning fluid down the surface is avoided.
Applicant’s limitation specifying that the reservoir is “to mix the filtered cleaning fluid with the cleaning liquid in the reservoir” specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The reservoir of Turner is arranged to receive the filtered water and is thus structurally capable of mixing filtered water with water already in the reservoir.
Applicant’s limitation specifying that the system is operable in “a direction from a top to a bottom of the flat vertical surface and in a direction from the bottom to the top of the flat vertical surface” specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the system of Turner, the in-brush nozzle, brush, and wiping surface are attached to a handpiece (item 30 in Figures 1 and 3B), and this handpiece is structurally capable of performing cleaning while being moved from a top to a bottom of a flat vertical surface and from the bottom to the top of the flat vertical surface.
As discussed, Turner teaches that the system comprises a filtration system (item 58 in Figure 1) for filtering the dirty water to produce filtered water (page 23). Turner doesn’t provide much detail about this “filtration system”, but Turner’s Figure 1 seems to illustrate that filtered water falls downwards into the reservoir. Turner does not teach using a second pump to pump filtered water back into the reservoir.
Zhang teaches that when collecting water used to clean surfaces in order to filter and reuse said water, a pump (item 8 in Figure 1) can be used to draw collected water through a filter pipe (item 7 in Figure 1), wherein the filter pipe comprises uniform small holes for filtering the water, and wherein the pump pulls the water through said filter such that the filtered water can then be reused for further cleaning (Abstract; page 3 of translation).
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 apparatus of Turner such that the filtration system (item 58 in Turner’s Figure 1) of Turner is substituted with a filter pipe and a pump (hereafter called a “second pump”) downstream of said filter pipe, wherein the filter pipe receives the used water from the air-water separator (item 80 in Turner’s Figure 1), wherein the second pump draws the water through the filter pipe, and wherein the pumped and filtered water is directed into the reservoir of water for reuse. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Zhang, who teaches that when collecting water used to clean surfaces in order to filter and reuse said water, a pump can be used to draw collected water through a filter pipe, wherein the filter pipe comprises uniform small holes for filtering the water, and wherein the pump pulls the water through said filter such that the filtered water can then be reused for further cleaning.
With regard to claim 3, in the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the brush (comprising bristles 40 in Turner’s Figure 3B) and wiper (comprising wiping surface 52 in Turner’s Figure 3B) are attached to a handpiece (item 30 in Figures 1 and 3B of Turner). In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the handpiece (item 30 in Figures 1 and 3B) is attached to a flexible hose (item 26 in Figure 1; Abstract; pages 2 and 18), and the combination of flexible hose and handpiece is considered to read on applicant’s compliant arm because it is an arm that can flexibly displaced by force. In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the brush and a wiper are thus attached to the body (item 12 in Turner’s Figure 1) of the system via the compliant arm.
With regard to claim 4, applicant’s limitation specifying that the cleaning-fluid is a water-detergent solution specifies intended use (MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang, the reservoir is structurally capable of containing a water-detergent solution as cleaning liquid.
With regard to claim 5, in the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang, the wiper can be considered a vacuum squeegee apparatus wherein the wiping surface (item 52 in Turner’s Figure 3B) made of flexible silicone rubber functions as the squeegee and vacuum inlet orifice 46 (in Turner’s Figure 3B) facilitates vacuuming (pages 19-21 of Turner).
With regard to claim 6, in the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang, the air-water separator (comprising item 80 in Figures 1, 7A, and 7B) is arranged to take in the air-water mixture and separate the air from the mixture and to suck the dirty water and the air through the system at a negative pressure in the system by employing the vacuum pump (the left pump 70 in Figure 5; reads on suction pump; pages 15, 16, and 20 of Turner).
With regard to claim 8, the system of Turner in view of Zhang does not comprise a running water supply.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/063452 by Turner in view of CN104433946 by Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN209377480 by Wang.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Turner in view of Zhang does not recite using a peristaltic pump as the first pump (item 118 in Turner’s Figure 6) for pumping water from the reservoir and to the handpiece (item 30 in Turner’s Figures 1 and 3B).
Wang teaches that when attempting to clean surfaces by pumping cleaning liquid from a reservoir to a dispensing tool, a peristaltic pump can successfully be used as the pump for pumping cleaning liquid out of the reservoir and towards the dispensing tool (Abstract; pages 3 and 5-7 of translation).
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 apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang such that a peristaltic pump is used as the first pump for pumping water out of the reservoir and towards the handpiece. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wang, who teaches that when attempting to clean surfaces by pumping cleaning liquid from a reservoir to a dispensing tool, a peristaltic pump can successfully be used as the pump for pumping cleaning liquid out of the reservoir and towards the dispensing tool.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/063452 by Turner in view of CN104433946 by Zhang in view of U.S. 4,198,724 to Fisher.
With regard to claim 9, Turner teaches a method for cleaning wall surfaces with a cleaning system, wherein the system comprises a reservoir (a portion of body 12 below filtration system 58 when looking at Figure 1) that stores cleaning water (item 16 in Figure 1; reads on cleaning fluid), a first pump (item 118 in Figure 6) for pumping water from the reservoir such that the pumped water can be used to perform cleaning of surfaces, an in-brush nozzle (item 50 in Figure 3B) for dispensing the water on to-be-cleaned surfaces, a brush (comprising bristles 40 in Figure 3B), a wiper comprising a wiping surface (item 52 in Figure 3B) that is made of flexible silicone rubber and is configured to be in contact with to-be-cleaned surfaces, a wiper-integrated suction (comprising inlet 46 in Figure 3B) for sucking a mixture of dirty water and air towards an air-water separator (comprising item 80 in Figures 1, 7A, and 7B) that separates the air from the dirty water, a filtration system (item 58 in Figure 1) for filtering the dirty water to produce filtered water, and a vacuum pump (the left pump 70 in Figure 5) configured to suck air from the air-water separator and exhaust said sucked air in atmosphere through an exhaust (pages 13-23). In the system of Turner, an elongated handpiece (item 130 in Figure 3D) is used to support the in-brush nozzle, brush, and wiper when the system is used to scrub clean wall surfaces, and Turner teaches using the in-brush nozzle, brush, and wiper arrangement of Figure 3B on the elongated handpiece of Figure 3D (page 22 of Turner).
The method of Turner does not explicitly teach wiping the water with the wiper (comprising wiping surface 52 in Figure 3B). However, Turner teaches performing scrubbing action to aid cleaning of wall surfaces (page 22 of Turner), and Turner teaches that the water is sprayed (via nozzle 50 Figure 3B) onto the to-be-cleaned surfaces in order to aid the cleaning thereof. 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 Turner such that water-spraying (via nozzle 50) and scrubbing are simultaneously performed such that the wiper wipes water on wall surfaces. These two cleaning actions (water spraying and scrubbing) have to be performed in time either simultaneously or separately, and from these limited number of choices (simultaneously or separately in time), choosing to simultaneously perform water-spraying and scrubbing such that water on wall surfaces is wiped by the wiper would have been obvious because one would expect that cleaning could successfully be performed with such simultaneous performance of spraying and scrubbing.
As discussed, Turner teaches that the system comprises a filtration system (item 58 in Figure 1) for filtering the dirty water to produce filtered water (page 23). Turner doesn’t explicitly recite (in writing) that the filtered water is mixed with water in the reservoir. However, Turner’s Figure 1 seems to suggest as much because Turner’s Figure 1 illustrates filtered water falling towards water already in the reservoir. 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 Turner such that the filtered water is mixed with water already in the reservoir because Turner’s Figure 1 seems to suggest as much. If this suggested-by-the-Figure argument is not persuasive, here is a different argument: 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 Turner such that, when filtered water is returned to the reservoir, there is already some water in the reservoir (such that mixing thus occurs). The motivation for having some water already in the reservoir before the filtered water is mixed therein is that, during cleaning, if the reservoir is empty, further spray-cleaning can’t occur because there is no water in the reservoir to pump to the nozzle (item 50 in Figure 3B); thus, having the reservoir contain enough water such that some water is always in the reservoir during cleaning ensures that more spray-cleaning can always be performed when desired.
As discussed, Turner teaches that the system comprises a filtration system (item 58 in Figure 1) for filtering the dirty water to produce filtered water (page 23). Turner doesn’t provide much detail about this “filtration system”, but Turner’s Figure 1 seems to illustrate that filtered water falls downwards into the reservoir. Turner does not teach using a pump to pump filtered water back into the reservoir.
Zhang teaches that when collecting water used to clean surfaces in order to filter and reuse said water, a pump (item 8 in Figure 1) can be used to draw collected water through a filter pipe (item 7 in Figure 1), wherein the filter pipe comprises uniform small holes for filtering the water, and wherein the pump pulls the water through said filter such that the filtered water can then be reused for further cleaning (Abstract; page 3 of translation).
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 Turner such that the filtration system (item 58 in Turner’s Figure 1) of Turner is substituted with a filter pipe and a pump (hereafter called a “second pump”) downstream of said filter pipe, wherein the filter pipe receives the used water from the air-water separator (item 80 in Turner’s Figure 1), wherein the second pump draws the water through the filter pipe, and wherein the pumped and filtered water is directed into the reservoir of water for reuse. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Zhang, who teaches that when collecting water used to clean surfaces in order to filter and reuse said water, a pump can be used to draw collected water through a filter pipe, wherein the filter pipe comprises uniform small holes for filtering the water, and wherein the pump pulls the water through said filter such that the filtered water can then be reused for further cleaning. In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, when filtered water is pumped (by the second pump) into the reservoir, the filtered water is mixed with water already in the reservoir. In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the filtered water returned to the reservoir is then ready to be pumped (by the first pump) to the spray nozzle (item 50 in Figure 3B of Turner) in a next cleaning cycle.
The combination of Turner in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach that a cleaned wall is a vertical wall, and the combination of Turner in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach that their cleaning method is operable in both a top-to-bottom direction on the wall and a bottom-to-top direction of the wall.
However, it is well known that vertical walls can become dirty and need cleaning. Fisher teaches that when cleaning a vertical wall, cleaning can successfully be performed by a cleaning apparatus by moving the cleaning apparatus in upwards and downwards directions (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 6-11; Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 68).
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 Turner in view of Zhang such that the cleaned wall is a vertical wall and the scrub-cleaning of the wall is performed by using the handpiece to move the in-brush nozzle, the brush, and the wiper in top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top directions along the to-be-cleaned vertical wall. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Fisher, who teaches that when cleaning a vertical wall, cleaning can successfully be performed by a cleaning apparatus by moving the cleaning apparatus in upwards and downwards directions.
With regard to claim 10, the method of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher is considered to be a cyclic process because used cleaning water from the reservoir is filtered and returned to the reservoir for further use in a next operation cycle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Non-Final Rejection dated 9/8/2025, the examiner pointed out two instances of claim language invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation. Specifically, the examiner’s position in the Non-Final Rejection was that the phrase “an in brush dispenser for dispensing or spraying the cleaning fluid” in claim 1 invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation and that the phrase “a separator for taking in an air-water mixture…and separating the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture” invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation. In applicant’s claim amendments dated 12/8/2025, applicant amended the first phrase to “an in-brush dispenser configured to dispense or spray the cleaning fluid”, and, in applicant’s arguments, applicant says that this amendment “is intended to remove the function ‘for’ language that is some cases may trigger 112(f)”. However, it is noted that, in the examiner’s opinion, this language “an in-brush dispenser configured to dispense or spray the cleaning fluid” still invokes a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, as the language comprises a generic placeholder (“dispenser”) that is coupled with functional language (“configured to dispense or spray the cleaning fluid”). Applicant argues that “’dispenser’ is a structural term”. However, in the examiner’s opinion, so many structures could be used to dispense fluid that “dispenser” should properly be considered a generic placeholder term.
In applicant’s claim amendments dated 12/8/2025, applicant amended the second phrase to “a separator configured to take in an air-water mixture…and separating the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture”, and, in applicant’s arguments, applicant says that this amendment “is intended to remove the functional ‘for’ language that may trigger 112(f). However, it is noted that, in the examiner’s opinion, this language “a separator configured to take in an air-water mixture…and separating the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture” still invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, as the language comprises a generic placeholder (“separator”) that is coupled with functional language (“separating the air from the contaminated or dirty water”). Applicant argues that such a “separator” is a “known structure in the art, and example is structurally illustrated in Figure 1 (Item 7)”. However, item 7 in applicant’s Figure 1 literally is just a diagram box; a detailed structure is not illustrated. In the examiner’s opinion, so many structures are physically able to function as sites wherein air can be separated by water (even just by evaporation) that “separator” should properly be considered a generic placeholder term. Applicant argues that applicant’s specification “describes its function in the context of a vacuum system” and that “this provides a sufficient exemplary structural context to one of ordinary skill in the art that the separator is a vessel configured to disentrain liquid from an airflow, a common mechanical component”. This line of argument is not persuasive. What applicant calls “structural context” is not a specific example of structure. Again, in the examiner’s opinion, so many structures are physically able to function as sites wherein air can be separated by water (even just by evaporation) that “separator” should properly be considered a generic placeholder term.
Applicant argues that “Turner discloses a fundamentally different fluid management architecture designed for a different purpose, which fails to teach the specific elements of ‘wiper integrated suction’ and the active, closed-loop recycling topology required for the vertical operations defined in Amended Claim 1”. Going into more detail, applicant asserts that “the claim language defines a functional and structural relationship where the suction is integrated with the wiper to immediately capture fluid wiped from the surface”. The examiner disagrees with this assertion. The claim language simply does not specify that the suction immediately capture fluid wiped from a surface. Furthermore, claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. What matters is the structure, not the “intended use” (MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the structure. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Turner’s apparatus comprises a wiper comprising a wiping surface (item 52 in Figure 3B) that is made of flexible silicone rubber and is configured to be in contact with to-be-cleaned surfaces, and Turner’s apparatus comprises a wiper-integrated suction (comprising inlet 46 in Figure 3B) for sucking a mixture of dirty water and air towards an air-water separator (comprising item 80 in Figures 1, 7A, and 7B) that separates the air from the dirty water. Applicant’s limitation specifying that sucking contaminated or dirty cleaning fluid is “to avoid spillage or running of cleaning fluid down the flat vertical surface” specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The wiper-integrated suction of Turner is structurally capable of sucking a mixture of dirty water and air towards an air-water separator and away from a cleaned surface, and the wiper-integrated suction is thus considered to be structurally capable of sucking said mixture off of a hard flat vertical surface such that spillage or running of cleaning fluid down the surface is avoided.
On page 8 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
The Office Action equates Turner’s “wiping surface” (Item 52 in Turner’s Figure 3B) with the claimed “wiper”. However, a careful examination of Turner’s specification reveals that Item 52 is not a wiper in the sense of a squeegee that clears fluid for a specific suction inlet, but rather a sealing skirt designed to maintained a vacuum chamber.
This line of argument is not persuasive. It is true that Turner’s skirt 52 is used to form a vacuum enclosure, but that fact doesn’t mean that item 52 isn’t structurally a wiper. Turner teaches that the skirt 52 is made of flexible silicone rubber and configured to be in contact with a cleaned surface (page 20 of Turner and Figure 4B). The skirt 52 is structurally capable of performing wiping.
On page 8 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the function of this skirt is not to wipe fluid into a suction port, but to seal an enclosure”. This argument is not a persuasive one against the examiner’s rejection. Again, it is true that Turner’s skirt 52 is used to form a vacuum enclosure, but that fact doesn’t mean that item 52 isn’t structurally a wiper. Turner teaches that the skirt 52 is made of flexible silicone rubber and configured to be in contact with a cleaned surface (page 20 of Turner and Figure 4B). The skirt 52 is structurally capable of performing wiping. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. What matters is the structure, not the “intended use” (MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the structure. Furthermore, applicant’s claim 1 doesn’t actually recite the function of having the skirt “wipe fluid into a suction port”, as applicant’s argument implies. Applicant’s argument thus seems to be based on functional language that isn’t actually in claim 1.
On page 9 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
In contrast, the Applicant’s “wiper integrated suction” implies a localized suction effect associated with the mechanical wiping action. The wiper consolidates the fluid, and the integrated suction removes it.
This line of argument is not persuasive. What matters is what claims recite, not what a particular reader might think that claims imply as recited. In other words, claim 1 does not actually recite the functional language that “the wiper consolidates the fluid, and the integrated suction removes it”. Therefore, applicant’s arguments again appear to be based on functional language that isn’t actually in claim 1. Applicant argues that “in Turner, the skirt (52) does not have a suction inlet integrated into it”. However, using the standard of broadest reasonable interpretation, applicant’s phrase “wiper integrated suction” in claim 1 is not considered to be limited to a situation wherein a suction inlet is physically inside a wiper. Some definitions of “integrate” (verb) in the Merriam-Webster dictionary include “to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole: unite”, “to incorporate into a larger unit”, and “to unite with something else”. When looking at Turner’s Figure 3B, it is totally reasonable for the examiner to say that the suction unit (which comprises inlet 46) is integrated with wiper 52, as the suction unit (comprising inlet 46) and wiper 52 cooperate together as a larger unit – namely, a unit wherein the wiper 52 forms an enclosure from which the suction unit suctions up air (and liquid entrained in the air).
On page 10 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that when the examiner modifies the teachings of Turner with the teachings of Zhang, the examiner is relying on “impermissible hindsight reconstruction and fails to account for the structural incompatibilities of the references. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 11 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the fluid cycle of Zhang’s apparatus is the “inverse” of applicant’s own technique. This argument is unpersuasive because it is irrelevant to the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang. The examiner is not using the Zhang reference as the primary reference in the combination of Turner in view of Zhang. Turner is the primary reference, not Zhang. In the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang used to reject claim 1, the Zhang reference is simply provided to teach that “when collecting water used to clean surfaces in order to filter and reuse said water, a pump (item 8 in Figure 1) can be used to draw collected water through a filter pipe (item 7 in Figure 1), wherein the filter pipe comprises uniform small holes for filtering the water, and wherein the pump pulls the water through said filter such that the filtered water can then be reused for further cleaning (Abstract; page 3 of translation)”. The examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang does not take Zhang’s entire fluid cycle and try to somehow impose it onto Turner’s system. How teachings from the Zhang reference are used to modify the Turner reference is articulated in the rejection of claim 1.
On page 11 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that modifying Turner with Zhang “fundamentally alters Turner’s operation”. The examiner disagrees. In the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the filtration system (item 58 in Turner’s Figure 1) of Turner is substituted with a filter pipe and a pump (hereafter called a “second pump”) downstream of said filter pipe, wherein the filter pipe receives the used water from the air-water separator (item 80 in Turner’s Figure 1), wherein the second pump draws the water through the filter pipe, and wherein the pumped and filtered water is directed into the reservoir of water for reuse. Turner’s operation is not being fundamentally altered; in the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, previously-used water from the air-water separator (item 80 in Turner’s Figure 1) is still being filtered and directed back into the reservoir for reuse.
On page 11 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang “ignores the constraints of vertical climbing robots”. Applicant points out that the apparatus of Turner functions by having the canister (shown in Figure 1 of Turner) remaining upright. Applicant points out that “if Turner were inverted (as a climbing robot might be, or if it were compact enough to be mounted on a vertical climber), the gravity drain from the separator would fail; liquid would not flow into the reservoir or would flood the vacuum motor”. This argument is not persuasive because the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang in no way involves tilting or inverting the body 12 (in Figure 1 of Turner) of Turner’s cleaning apparatus. The examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang does not involve the body 12 somehow climbing a wall of being loaded onto a wall-climbing machine. Crucially, applicant’s claims do not recite that the apparatus of claim 1 is a wall-climbing robot or is loaded onto a wall-climbing device. Applicant’s arguments seem to imply that applicant’s claimed apparatus is an apparatus configured to climb up a wall but that is simply not the case. Applicant’s arguments are thus not commensurate with the actual scope of the claims. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, applicant’s limitation specifying that the system is operable in “direction from a top to a bottom of the hard flat vertical surface and in a direction from the bottom to the top of the hard flat vertical surface” specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the system of Turner, the in-brush nozzle, brush, and wiping surface are attached to a handpiece (item 30 in Figures 1 and 3B), and this handpiece is structurally capable of performing cleaning while being moved from a top to a bottom of a hard flat vertical surface and from the bottom to the top of the hard flat vertical surface.
On page 12 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that applicant’s pumping arrangement “enables the system to operate independent of orientation”. That way very well be the case, but that is not an argument against the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang. What matters is whether or not the combination of Turner in view of Zhang teaches the claimed limitations or not. In the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the examiner carefully articulates what Turner teaches and how teachings of Zhang are used to modify Turner’s apparatus. How the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang corresponds to applicant’s claimed limitations is carefully articulated by the rejection of claim 1.
On page 12 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang “is heavily dependent on vertical orientation”. This line of argument is not a persuasive argument against the examiner’s rejection. Applicant’s claim language does not exclude such an apparatus. Accepting for argument’s sake that the body 12 (in Figure 1 of Turner) needs to be arranged in the orientation illustrated in Turner’s Figure 1, that fact would in no way conflict with what is recited by applicant’s claims. What matters is whether or not the combination of Turner in view of Zhang teaches the claimed limitations or not. In the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the examiner carefully articulates what Turner teaches and how teachings of Zhang are used to modify Turner’s apparatus. How the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang corresponds to applicant’s claimed limitations is carefully articulated by the rejection of claim 1.
On page 12 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the Office Action states that ‘hard flat vertical surfaces’ specifies intended use and is not given patentable weight. The Applicant’s respectfully disagrees.” Applicant argues that “while ‘vertical surface’ describes the workpiece, the capability to clean a vertical surface without spillage (as recited in claim 1: ‘to avoid spillage or running of cleaning fluid down the vertical surface’) imposes specific structural and functional requirements on the apparatus”. Applicant asserts that “a system capable of preventing ‘running of cleaning fluid down the…vertical surface” must posses a suction-to-seal ratio and a wiper configured that is structurally distinct from a floor cleaner”. This line of argument is not persuasive because the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang is clearly not structurally limited to only being able to clean floors. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, applicant’s limitation specifying that the system is for cleaning a “flat vertical surface” specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The system of Turner is structurally capable of being used to clean a flat vertical surface. In the system of Turner, the in-brush nozzle, brush, and wiping surface are attached to a handpiece (item 30 in Figures 1 and 3B), and this handpiece is structurally capable of being held by a user and used to clean a flat vertical surface. If the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang were only structurally capable of cleaning floors, then applicant’s argument might be persuasive, but that is clearly not the case. In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the handpiece is structurally capable of being held by a user and used to clean a flat vertical surface.
On page 13 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Furthermore, the claim recites that the system is operable “in a direction from the bottom to the top”. Moving a cleaning head up a wall while preventing fluid from running down requires a specific relationship between the dispenser, the brush, and the wiper/suction assembly that is not inherent in generic surface cleaners.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Whatever this “specific relationship” may or may not be, an examiner is supposed to look at what a claim recites when judging whether or not to make a rejection. What matters is what the claims actually recite. In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the handpiece is structurally capable of being held by a user and used to clean a flat vertical surface. In the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang, the wiper-integrated suction is structurally capable of sucking a mixture of dirty water and air towards an air-water separator and away from a cleaned surface, and the wiper-integrated suction is thus considered to be structurally capable of sucking said mixture off of a hard flat vertical surface such that spillage or running of cleaning fluid down the surface is avoided.
On page 13 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Turner is a handheld wand connected to a floor canister. While the wand can be moved vertically, the system (including the reservoir/separator) relies on the floor cannister being upright. The Applicant’s system, as claimed with the dual-pump loop, describes a self-contained fluid management architecture that allows the entire system (functionally) to operate in vertical orientations without the gravity/drain limitations of Turner.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that what applicant calls Turner’s cannister (presumably comprising the body 12 illustrated in Figure 1 of Turner) has to remain upright during when the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang performs cleaning, that fact would in no way be an argument against the appropriateness of using the combination of Turner in view of Zhang to reject claim 1. The language of claim 1 in no excludes having the Turner’s body 12 remain in the orientation shown in Turner’s Figure 1 during cleaning.
On page 14 of applicant’s arguments, applicant points out that “Wang does not teach or suggest the integration of a peristaltic pump into a closed-loop recycling system involving a second pump and a separator as claimed in the Applicant’s invention”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner rejects claim 2 using a combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Wang, not Wang alone.
On page 15 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Fisher discloses an “Automatic Widow Washer” that is suspended from the roof of a building by cables. It is a large, heavy industrial carriage (See Fisher, Fig. 1) which is incompatible with the “specialized cleaning system” concept.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Firstly, it is noted that the word “specialized” has been removed from the claims by applicant’s claim amendments. Secondly, the examiner is not persuaded by the assertion that a “large, heavy industrial carriage” (applicant’s words) cannot be considered specialized. Thirdly, the Fisher reference is used to modify the method of Turner in view of Zhang, and the Fisher reference is merely used to teach that “it is well known that vertical walls can become dirty and need cleaning. Fisher teaches that when cleaning a vertical wall, cleaning can successfully be performed by a cleaning apparatus by moving the cleaning apparatus in upwards and downwards directions.” The examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher doesn’t modify the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang to somehow add the “large, heavy industrial carriage” (applicant’s words) of Turner to the system of Turner in view of Zhang.
On page 15 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
The Office Action argues it would be obvious to modify Turner (a handheld wand) with the vertical movement of Fisher. However, this conflates two disparate fields of art: handheld/canister cleaners (Turner) and heavy, infrastructure-dependent suspended scaffolds (Fisher).
This line of argument is not persuasive. The examiner is not conflating the combination of Turner in view of Zhang with Fisher in the sense that the examiner is somehow fusing two different apparatuses together. When the examiner modifies the teachings of Turner in view of Zhang with teachings from Fisher, the examiner is merely lifting some teachings from the Fisher document and using those teachings to modify the method of Turner in view of Zhang. The examiner is not making a Frankenstein’s monster by somehow jumbling together two different apparatuses, as applicant’s argument seems to imply. As discussed, the Fisher reference is merely used to teach that “it is well known that vertical walls can become dirty and need cleaning. Fisher teaches that when cleaning a vertical wall, cleaning can successfully be performed by a cleaning apparatus by moving the cleaning apparatus in upwards and downwards directions.”
On page 16 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Fisher does not mix the filtered fluid with the clean fluid in the reservoir for immediate reuse in the same cycle in the manner claimed. Fisher segregates the fluids. The Applicant’s Claim 9 explicitly requires “pumping and mixing the filtered cleaning liquid…to the reservoir for a next cycle”.
This line of argument is not persuasive. When the examiner modifies the method of Turner in view of Zhang with teachings from Fisher, the examiner is not taking the fluid cycle of Fisher’s system and somehow imposing it on the method of Turner in view of Zhang. As discussed, the Fisher reference is merely used to teach that “it is well known that vertical walls can become dirty and need cleaning. Fisher teaches that when cleaning a vertical wall, cleaning can successfully be performed by a cleaning apparatus by moving the cleaning apparatus in upwards and downwards directions.”
On page 16, of applicant’s arguments, applicant repeats the argument that Turner doesn’t teach “wiper integrated suction”. However, as discussed above by the examiner, using the standard of broadest reasonable interpretation, applicant’s phrase “wiper integrated suction” in claim 9 is not considered to be limited to a situation wherein a suction inlet is physically inside a wiper. Some definitions of “integrate” (verb) in the Merriam-Webster dictionary include “to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole: unite”, “to incorporate into a larger unit”, and “to unite with something else”. When looking at Turner’s Figure 3B, it is totally reasonable for the examiner to say that the suction unit (which comprises inlet 46) is integrated with wiper 52, as the suction unit (comprising inlet 46) and wiper 52 cooperate together as a larger unit – namely, a unit wherein the wiper 52 forms an enclosure from which the suction unit suctions up air (and liquid entrained in the air).
On page 16, applicant argues the following:
Fischer uses squeegees (28, 30) with passageways, but Fisher’s apparatus is a suspended cage, not a system compatible with the “compliant arm” or lightweight nature implied by the Applicant’s disclosure.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Firstly, it is noted that what matter is what the claims recite; any “lightweight nature” that is “implied” by applicant’s disclosure is irrelevant. Secondly, when the examiner modifies the method of Turner in view of Zhang with teachings from Fisher, the examiner is not taking the cage of Fisher’s system and somehow imposing it on the method of Turner in view of Zhang. As discussed, the Fisher reference is merely used to teach that “it is well known that vertical walls can become dirty and need cleaning. Fisher teaches that when cleaning a vertical wall, cleaning can successfully be performed by a cleaning apparatus by moving the cleaning apparatus in upwards and downwards directions.”
On page 16 of applicant’s arguments applicant argues that step (g) requires “pumping and mixing”, whereas “Turner relies on gravity draining”. On page 16, applicant points out that “Fisher segregates used fluid from clean fluid. Neither reference teaches pumping filtered fluid back into a common reservoir to mix and crease a continuous, extended-duration cleaning cycle on-board a self-contained unit”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner rejection of claim 9 is not based on Turner alone, but rather the examiner’s combination of Turner in in view of Zhang in view of Fisher. The relevant portion of the examiner rejection of claim 9 is reproduced below:
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 Turner such that the filtration system (item 58 in Turner’s Figure 1) of Turner is substituted with a filter pipe and a pump (hereafter called a “second pump”) downstream of said filter pipe, wherein the filter pipe receives the used water from the air-water separator (item 80 in Turner’s Figure 1), wherein the second pump draws the water through the filter pipe, and wherein the pumped and filtered water is directed into the reservoir of water for reuse. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Zhang, who teaches that when collecting water used to clean surfaces in order to filter and reuse said water, a pump can be used to draw collected water through a filter pipe, wherein the filter pipe comprises uniform small holes for filtering the water, and wherein the pump pulls the water through said filter such that the filtered water can then be reused for further cleaning. In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, when filtered water is pumped (by the second pump) into the reservoir, the filtered water is mixed with water already in the reservoir. In the combination of Turner in view of Zhang, the filtered water returned to the reservoir is then ready to be pumped (by the first pump) to the spray nozzle (item 50 in Figure 3B of Turner) in a next cleaning cycle.
On page 17 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the combination of Turner, Zhang, and Fisher attempts to “Frankenstein” together a handheld wand, a sewage groove cleaner, and a massive suspended scaffold”. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher does not modify the method of Turner in view of Zhang to somehow have a “massive suspended scaffold”. Applicant appears to be laboring under the mistaken impression that a combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher must necessarily mean that the disparate apparatuses of these references are jumbled together. That is not the case. The examiner’s rejection of claim 9 carefully articulates how select teachings lifted from Zhang are used to modify the method of Turner and how select teachings from Fisher are used to modify the method of Turner in view of Zhang. Applicant argues that “even if combined, they do no result in the specific active dual-pump process recited in claim 9”. This, also, is not persuasive. In the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 using the combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher, a first pump (item 118 in Turner’s Figure 6) pumps water from the reservoir such that the pumped water can be used to perform cleaning of surfaces, and a second pump is arranged of the filter pipe. On page 17 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “applicant’s cyclic process, enabled by the second pump, allows for continuous operation in any orientation, a feature not rendered obvious by the rigid, gravity-dependent prior art”. However, as just discussed, in the combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher, a second pump is arranged of the filter pipe, and this second pump delivers filtered water to the reservoir for reuse. With regard to claims 9 and 10, applicant’s claim limitations are met by the examiner’s combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher.
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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714