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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments dated 9/21/2026 are acknowledged, and this office action is a response to those 9/21/2026 amendments and arguments.
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…for dispensing or spraying the cleaning fluid” in claims 1 and 9, 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 “an air-water separator…to take in an air-water mixture sucked by the wiper integrated suction, separate the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture, supply the separated air to the suction pump and supply the separated contaminated or dirty water to the filter” in claims 1 and 9.
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 claims 1 and 9, the limitation “an air-water separator…to take in an air-water mixture sucked by the wiper integrated suction, separate the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture, supply the separated air to the suction pump and supply the separated contaminated or dirty water to the filter” 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, 5, 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, a brush (comprising bristles 40 in Figure 3B, an in-brush nozzle 50 in Figure 3B, and a body portion of the head 34 from which the bristles 40 and nozzle 50 extend), an in-brush nozzle (item 50 in Figure 3B) connected to the first pump such that pumped water can be sprayed by the nozzle 50, and a wiper (the wiper comprising skirt 52 in Figure 3B made of flexible silicone rubber, and the wiper comprising a portion of the head 34 that surrounds an inlet 46 and from which the skirt 52 extends), wherein the inlet 46 corresponds to applicant’s integrated dirty water suction carried by the wiper body, wherein the inlet 46 is configured to suck 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 (pages 13-23). Turner teaches that the air-water separator is mounted in the system and fluidly connected to the inlet 46, a filter of filtration system 58, and a vacuum pump (the left pump 70 in Figure 5; reads on suction pump), wherein the air-water separator receives an air-water mixture from the inlet 46, separates the air from the dirty water such that the air is sent to the vacuum pump and the dirt water is sent to the filter of the filtration system, wherein the vacuum pump exhausts the air into atmosphere through an exhaust (pages 13-23). The filter of the filtration system filters the dirty water such that filtered cleaning fluid is returned to the reservoir (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 wiper 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 scrubbing the cleaning fluid”, and “agitating dirt” specify intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. 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 fluid 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 wiper 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) that is upstream of the pump, 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 5, in the apparatus of Turner in view of Zhang, the wiper can be considered a vacuum squeegee apparatus wherein the wiping skirt (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.
Claim 4 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 U.S. 4,835,811 to Crowhurst.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Turner in view of Zhang teaches that the water in the reservoir can be combined with “cleaning agent” (page 13 of Turner) but the combination of Turner in view of Zhang doesn’t teach that this “cleaning agent” could be a detergent. The combination of Turner in view of Zhang teaches performing scrubbing action to aid cleaning of wall surfaces (page 22 of Turner)
Crowhurst teaches that when attempting to use a cleaning liquid to clean a vertical surface, a mixture of water and detergent can successfully be used to perform cleaning of a vertical surface (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 5-10; Col. 2, 15-56).
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 by having the water in the reservoir be water mixed with detergent. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Crowhurst, who teaches that when attempting to use a cleaning liquid to clean a vertical surface, a mixture of water and detergent can successfully be used to perform cleaning of a vertical surface.
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 process for operating 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, a brush (comprising bristles 40 in Figure 3B, an in-brush nozzle 50 in Figure 3B, and a body portion of the head 34 from which the bristles 40 and nozzle 50 extend), an in-brush nozzle (item 50 in Figure 3B) connected to the first pump such that pumped water can be sprayed by the nozzle 50, and a wiper (the wiper comprising skirt 52 in Figure 3B made of flexible silicone rubber, and the wiper comprising a portion of the head 34 that surrounds an inlet 46 and from which the skirt 52 extends), wherein the inlet 46 corresponds to applicant’s integrated dirty water suction carried by the wiper body, wherein the inlet 46 is configured to suck 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 (pages 13-23). Turner teaches that the air-water separator is mounted in the system and fluidly connected to the inlet 46, a filter of filtration system 58, and a vacuum pump (the left pump 70 in Figure 5; reads on suction pump), wherein the air-water separator receives an air-water mixture from the inlet 46, separates the air from the dirty water such that the air is sent to the vacuum pump and the dirt water is sent to the filter of the filtration system, wherein the vacuum pump exhausts the air into atmosphere through an exhaust (pages 13-23). The filter of the filtration system filters the dirty water such that filtered cleaning fluid is returned to the reservoir (pages 13-23).
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) upstream of the pump, 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 flat vertical wall and the scrub-cleaning (and thus dirt agitation) 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. The motivation for cleaning a flat vertical wall with the method of Turner in view of Zhang would be to allow such a vertical wall to be successfully cleaned. In this combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher, since the inlet 46 (in Figure 3B of Turner) sucks dirty water from the treated surface, the inlet 46 is considered to avoid spillage or running of dirty water down the treated flat vertical surface. In this combination of Turner in view of Zhang in view of Fisher, since the flexible skirt 52 (in Figure 3B of Turner) surrounds the inlet 46, the skirt 52 is considered to be operable to wipe dirty water as the handpiece is moved up and down along the vertical wall, and the inlet 46 is considered to be operable to suck the dirty water as the handpiece is moved up and down along the vertical wall.
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 September 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 were rejected under 35 USC § 112(b), with the Office Action indicating that the prior “in brush” and “separator” limitations invoked 35 USC § 112(f) and lacked sufficiently linked corresponding structure.
It is noted that the examiner did not do a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection based on the “in brush” limitation. Above, the examiner does say that the phrase “an in-brush dispenser…for dispensing or spraying the cleaning fluid” invokes a 35 USC § 112(f) claim interpretation, but the examiner doesn’t do a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for the phrase “an in-brush dispenser…for dispensing or spraying the cleaning fluid”.
With regard to the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections based on the phrase “an air-water separator…to take in an air-water mixture sucked by the wiper integrated suction, separate the air from the contaminated or dirty water contained in the mixture, supply the separated air to the suction pump and supply the separated contaminated or dirty water to the filter”, applicant argues (on pages 6-7 of applicant’s arguments) that the claim amendments overcome this issue by reciting what the air-water separator is fluidly connected to and by reciting where dirty water and air respectively travel after the separation performed by the air-water separator. However, such limitations do not clarify the structure of the air-water separator itself. Reciting what the separator is connected to and how fluids (dirty water and air) are routed downstream of the separator does not clarify the structure of the air-water separator itself. In applicant’s specification, the air-water separator is item 7 in applicant’s Figure 1. However, item 7 in applicant’s Figure 1 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.
With regard to the obviousness rejections, applicant argues (on page 9 of applicant’s arguments) that “Zhang does not supply a reason to make the specific modification” [to the teachings of Turner]. Applicant points out that Turner teaches a “gravity-return filtration path”, unlike Zhang. Applicant articulates the argument as follows:
Applicant does not contend that Zhang must disclose the entire claimed system. The issue is whether Zhang supplies a reason to modify Turner’s admitted gravity-return arrangement into the specific amended fluid path. It does not. Zhang’s pump/filter teaching is disclosed in a separate-tank facade-cleaning architecture, while Turner already returns separated liquid by gravity. The rejection identifies no teaching or reason why a skilled artisan would extract Zhang’s pump/filter arrangement from that architecture and reposition it in Turner specifically downstream of the filter and upstream of Turner’s reservoir while also preserving the claimed separator-to-suction-pump routing.
This line of argument is not persuasive. 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. Combining the teachings of Turner with the teachings of Zhang – as described in the above rejections – would have been obvious because it is just substituting one technique of filtering water with another. Turner’s technique gravity return filtration path is replaced with using a pump to draw water through a filter. Turner and Zhang don’t need to provide clear evidence that one technique is superior to the other in order to make the obviousness rejection. Replacing one filtration technique taught by the prior art with another filtration technique can be considered obvious simply because the added filtration technique would be a successful way to achieve the goal of filtering and moving the water back into the reservoir.
On page 9 of applicant’s arguments, applicant says that the examiner is inappropriately using applicant invention as a “roadmap” in making the obviousness rejections. 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).
Near the bottom of page 9 of applicant’s arguments, applicant points out that “claim 1 now recites a wiper comprising a wiper comprising a wiper body and an integrated dirty water suction carried by the wiper body”. On page 10 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the cited disclosure does not show an integrated dirty water suction carried by the wiper body as now recited”. This argument/assertion is not persuasive. The examiner’s rejections articulate how this limitation is met. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, for example, Turner’s apparatus comprises “a wiper (the wiper comprising skirt 52 in Figure 3B made of flexible silicone rubber, and the wiper comprising a portion of the head 34 that surrounds an inlet 46 and from which the skirt 52 extends), wherein the inlet 46 corresponds to applicant’s integrated dirty water suction carried by the wiper body, wherein the inlet 46 is configured to suck 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”.
With regard to claim 3, applicant argues that “Turner’s flexible hose is a fluid/vacuum conduit between a body and a handpiece, not a compliant arm attaching the brush and wiper and maintaining cleaning force”. This line of argument is not persuasive. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "arm" as "something like or corresponding to an arm: such as d) a slender part of a structure, machine, or an instrument projecting from a main part, axis, or fulcrum". Another Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "arm" is "a narrow extension of a larger area, mass, or group". The examiner has not violated the standard of giving claim terms their broadest reasonably interpretation. The examiner’s rejection does not say that Turner’s hose alone is what corresponds to the arm. As discussed in the rejection of claim 3, 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 independent claim 9, applicant repeats their arguments for claim 1 with regard to claim 9. Similarly, the examiner’s responses to those repeated arguments are also repeated, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights