DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 19 has been added. Claims 1-19 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-12, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because a new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0033461 A1) and KONG (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0178407 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Lindner teaches a mopping device, comprising:
a support body (1 Figs. 1-5); and
a mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5) having a first end (13 of 2 shown in Fig. 5; “Only the edge 13 of the wiping cloth 2 clamped between the clamping edges 5, 6 cannot be used as a cleaning surface”) and a second free end (free end of 2 shown in Figs. 1-5), the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1 and 2) being detachably connected to the support body (1 Figs. 1-5),
wherein the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) comprises two clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5),
wherein the two clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5) each have a clamping edge (5 and 6 Figs. 1-5) and are arranged relative to one another so as to clamp the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5) between the clamping edges (5 and 6 Figs. 1-5) when in a closed position (shown in the clamped, closed position in Fig. 5) and are configured to move into an open position (open position when 10 is pressed Fig. 5) for inserting or removing the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5) into or from the support body (1 Figs. 1-5),
wherein at least one of the clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5) is configured as a pressing plate (outward facing face of 3 and 4) to press the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5) against a surface that is to be cleaned, and
wherein the clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5) delimit a cavity (cavity of 3 and 4 shown in Figs. 1-5), and wherein the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5)is clamped to the support body in such a way that the second free end (free end of 2 shown in Figs. 1-5) of the mopping cloth is not fastened (13 of 2 shown in Fig. 5; “Only the edge 13 of the wiping cloth 2 clamped between the clamping edges 5, 6 cannot be used as a cleaning surface”) to the support body (1 Figs. 1-5).
But is silent on wherein the clamping plates delimit a cavity in which specifically a mopping cloth dispenser comprising further mopping cloths is arranged.
KONG in an analogous mopping device (1 Figs. 1 and 3) comprising a similar configuration clamping edge (19 Fig. 3) wherein the similar configuration cavity (cavity created by 11 and 21 Figs. 1 and 3) in which a mopping cloth dispenser (14 Fig. 1) comprising further mopping cloths is arranged.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mopping device of Lindner with the mopping cloth dispenser as taught by KONG for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, to allow easy operation and replacement of a cleaning member ([0006] of KONG).
Referring to Claim 2: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5) are arranged in a wedge-shaped configuration (shown in Fig. 5) and wherein the support body (1 Figs. 1-5), on a side facing away (side of 16 shown in Fig. 5) from the clamping edges (5 and 6 Figs. 1-5), is delimited by a back side (back sides of 3 and 4) which joins the clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5).
Referring to Claim 4: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the mopping cloth dispenser (14 Fig. 1 of KONG) is formed by a mopping cloth roll (shown in Fig. 1 of KONG), from which mopping cloths are configured to be dispensed.
Referring to Claim 6: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the mopping cloths (mopping cloths of 14 Fig. 1 of KONG) in the mopping cloth dispenser (14 Fig. 1 of KONG) are contiguously joined to each other.
Referring to Claim 9: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the clamping edges (5 and 6 Figs. 1-5) are provided, at least in part, with surface profiles (surface profiles of 5 and 6 Figs. 1-5) on their sides facing the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5) and wherein the surface profiles contact the mopping cloth in a frictional (“Alternatively or additionally, the clamping edges of the pressure plates can have a friction-enhancing surface on the side facing the edge of the wiping cloth,” [0020]) and/or interlocking adjacent manner.
Referring to Claim 10: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) and the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5) are connected to each other only by an edge (edge of 2 shown in Fig. 5) of the mopping cloth clamped between the clamping edges (5 and 6 Figs. 1-5).
Referring to Claim 11: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein both clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5) are formed as pressing plates (“The carrying body includes two pressure plates for pressing the wiping cloth on a surface to be cleaned.” [0007]).
Referring to Claim 12: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the mopping cloth (2 Figs. 1-5) includes two functional surfaces (“the two functional surfaces of the wiping cloth (front side and back side of the wiping cloth)” [0008]).
Referring to Claim 13: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 12, wherein the functional surfaces are structured to be the same (“The two functional surfaces of the wiping cloth can be configured the same or differently” [0013]).
Referring to Claim 14: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) and a mop handle (19 Figs. 1-5) are connected by a joint (14 Fig. 5).
Referring to Claim 15: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 14, wherein the mop handle (19 Figs. 1-5) and the joint (14 Fig. 5) are centrally arranged (shown in Figs. 4 and 5) on the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) as viewed in a longitudinal direction (shown in Figs. 4 and 5) of the support body (1 Figs. 1-5).
Referring to Claim 16: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 14, wherein the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) is pivotable from a vertical position with respect to the mop handle (19 Figs. 1-5) by a pivoting angle, which is at least 180° (“The swivel angle can be at least 180.degree.. Preferably, the swivel angle is at least 225.degree.” [0031]).
Referring to Claim 17: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the clamping plates (3 and 4 Figs. 1-5) of the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) comprise a polymeric material (“The pressure plates are preferably made of a polymeric material” [0033]).
Referring to Claim 18: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 12, wherein the functional surfaces are structured to be different (“The two functional surfaces of the wiping cloth can be configured the same or differently” [0013]).
Referring to Claim 19: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, wherein the mopping cloth includes two functional surfaces (functional surfaces of 2 Figs. 1-5; “the two functional surfaces of the wiping cloth (front side and back side of the wiping cloth)” [0008]), wherein each functional surface is adapted for cleaning a specific and different type of material or a specific and different type of surface from the other functional surface (“The two functional surfaces of the wiping cloth can be configured the same or differently” [0013]), wherein the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) and a mop handle (19 Figs. 1-5) are connected by a joint (14 Fig. 5), wherein the mop handle (19 Figs. 1-5) and the joint (14 Fig. 5) are centrally arranged (shown in Figs. 4 and 5) on the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) as viewed in a longitudinal direction (shown in Figs. 4 and 5) of the support body, wherein the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) is pivotable from a vertical position with respect to the mop handle by a pivoting angle (“The swivel angle can be at least 180.degree.. Preferably, the swivel angle is at least 225.degree.” [0031]), and wherein pivoting the support body (1 Figs. 1-5) via the mop handle (19 Figs. 1-5) and joint enables switching [0041] from between the two functional surfaces (functional surfaces of 2 Figs. 1-5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0033461 A1) and KONG (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0178407 A1), as applied above in claim 2, and in further view of Gold (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0015236 A1).
Referring to Claim 3: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 2,
but is silent on wherein at least one of the clamping plates and/or the back side comprise attachment means configured to receive the second free end of the mopping cloth facing away from the clamping edges.
Gold in an analogous mopping device (200 Figs. 5, 7, and 8) comprising at least one of the similar configuration clamping plates (213 Fig. 5) and/or the back side comprise attachment means (215 Fig. 5) configured to receive the similar configuration second free end (second free end of 218 Fig. 5) of the similar configuration mopping cloth (218 Fig. 5) facing away from the similar configuration clamping edges (217 and 219 Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mopping device of Lindner as modified with the attachment means as taught by Gold for the purpose of having the option of securing the free end of the mopping cloth which helps in certain cleaning scenarios.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0033461 A1) and KONG (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0178407 A1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Fujimoto et al. (JP2004329640A).
Referring to Claim 5: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the mopping cloth dispenser is formed by a folded package including the mopping cloths.
Fujimoto et al. in an analogous mopping device teaches wherein the mopping cloth dispenser (mopping cloth dispenser of 5 with arrangement of 3 Fig. 1-A) is formed by a folded package (shown in Figs. 3 and 4; “There are roll sheets and folding sheets.” Translation’s 2nd paragraph of description) including the mopping cloths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mopping device of Lindner as modified with the mopping folded package as taught by Fujimoto et al. for the purpose of maximizing the available space and increasing the capability of holding more mopping cloth.
Referring to Claim 7: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein tearing aids are arranged between adjacent mopping cloths.
Fujimoto et al. in an analogous mopping device teaches tearing aids (“The sheet is perforated in the length of one time, making it easy to separate.” Translation’s 3rd paragraph of description of Fujimoto et al.) are arranged between adjacent mopping cloths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mopping cloths of Lindner as modified with the tearing aids as taught by Fujimoto et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, facilitating the discarding of individual mopping cloths.
Referring to Claim 8: Lindner as modified teaches the mopping device according to claim 7, but is silent on wherein the tearing aids are formed by a perforation.
Fujimoto et al. in an analogous mopping device teaches wherein the tearing aids are formed by a perforation (“The sheet is perforated in the length of one time, making it easy to separate.” Translation’s 3rd paragraph of description of Fujimoto et al.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mopping cloths of Lindner as modified with the tearing aids are formed by a perforation as taught by Fujimoto et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, facilitating the discarding of individual mopping cloths.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723