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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claim 1 and 18 is currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit (US 20190380553 A1) in view of Gordon (US 20080047093 A1) Venard (US 20140041146 A1), Alazet (US 5067199 A) and Lubbers (US 20160213214 A1) and as evidenced by Albin (NPL Art. V, prev. cited 10/04/2024)
With respect to claim 1, De Wit discloses: A wet cleaning apparatus comprising:
a cleaner head having at least one dirt inlet (DFC, fig. 1A; [0018]) and a porous material comprising a porous material layer sealingly attached to the at least one dirt inlet (porous material PP, fig. 1A; [0018], sealed (attached) as shown in figure, consistent with instant disclosure); and
an underpressure generator arrangement comprising an underpressure generator having an underpressure generator inlet, an underpressure generator outlet (battery powered pump in [0018], the pump is used to move fluid into the dirty fluid container via a dirty fluid drain so it has both an inlet and outlet), the underpressure generator being activatable to provide a flow for drawing fluid from the at least one dirt inlet to and through the underpressure generator outlet (pump connected to underpressure generator outlet, as in [0018] as it moves fluid to a dirty fluid container shown in fig. 4),
however, does not explicitly disclose
a compressible hose positioned between the underpressure generator inlet and the underpressure generator outlet
and that the underpressure generator arrangement is configured to be:
deactivatable to cease the flow, wherein the underpressure generator arrangement is configured to compress the compressible hose in at least one position to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated,
wherein the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated.
Gordon, in the same field of endeavor, relating to floor cleaning teaches of selectively turning off a underpressure generator [deactivatable to cease the flow] in order to save battery ([0005-0006]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Wit such that the underpressure generator arrangement is configured to be deactivatable to cease the flow, as taught by Gordon, in order to conserve power.
Regarding the arrangement of a compressible hose positioned between the underpressure generator inlet and the underpressure generator outlet, the underpressure generator arrangement is configured to compress the compressible hose in at least one position to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet, Alazet, in the same field of endeavor, as related to floor cleaning, teaches of using a peristaltic pump (col 2 line 66-col 3 line 19, pump shown as 11, fig. 3). Alazet teaches that this arrangement of a peristaltic pump provides for a compressible hose positioned between the underpressure generator [pump] inlet and the underpressure generator [pump] outlet (compressible tube 10, figs, 3-4, col 2 line 66 to col 3 line 12, the tubes have an outlet at 14, fig. 3, and an inlet at 5, fig. 4; see also rollers 13 that compress the tube/hose 10). Alazet teaches that this type of pump has an action that “this action ensuring that the liquid to be eliminated will be sucked out, without any risk of the pump becoming drained out” (col 2 line 66-col 3 line 19).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a peristaltic pump as the underpressure generator in De Wit, to eliminate any risk of the pump being drained out, as taught by Alazet.
As for the underpressure generator arrangement is configured to compress the compressible hose in at least one position to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated, Albin, pertinent to the problem being solved of providing pumps resistant to backflow, teaches that peristaltic pumps are resistant to contamination, due to the fluid being contained in a hose (“At the core of the pump is an elastomeric hose or tube that contains the fluid, virtually eliminating the possibility of product contamination”, page 6); and that the pump is resistant to backflow (“The rollers or shoes move fluid through the hose or tube, so there is no need for degassing valves. The rollers squeeze the tube to prevent backflow and eliminate the need for mechanical seals, creating a sealless system.”, page 7), thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have understood that the underpressure generator arrangement is configured to compress the compressible hose in at least one position to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated, due to the use of rollers to compress the hose.
Regarding the limitation that the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated, as noted above, De Wit provides for a porous material layer (PP, fig. 1A; [0018] - that drains fluid from a surface interaction layer ML). In [0018], De Wit explicitly incorporates by reference Lubbers (US 20160213214 A1), and provides that Lubbers teaches of “suitable components for draining the dirty fluid”.
Lubbers, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning tools, teaches in reference to a porous plastic layer, analogous to that of De Wit, teaches of a porous plastic sheet having pores (PM, fig. 2; [0023]), that the porous plastic allows fluid to pass under underpressure ([0024-0025]), while also preventing collected fluid from draining, allowing flow in one direction only ([0026-0027] provides that the fluid passes one way only [which includes one way flow when the pump is off given the recitation of “only”] and the arrangement provides a benefit in that a pressure difference is created by not allowing fluid to be drained in the opposite direction, meeting the claimed limitation that the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, because of the teaching that fluid passes one way only to maintain/create a pressure difference; this is further evidenced by [0030] which provides that the porous plastic allows for entry of very little to no air, thus maintaining underpressue by limiting air flow).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the porous plastic of Lubbers in De Wit, given that De Wit discloses that the material is suitable, and given the advantages taught by Lubbers in that it ensures continuous generation of underpressure so as to not cause backflow of collected cleaning fluid.
With respect to claim 2, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches the underpressure generator is configured to restrict backflow of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet in the direction of the at least one dirt inlet at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated (as shown using Albin in the rejection of claim 1 above, the rollers prevent/limit backflow, which would include when the pump/underpressure generator is deactivated).
With respect to claim 3, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the underpressure generator comprises a positive displacement pump (Alazet, the peristatic pump, referenced in claim 1 above, is a positive displacement pump since it encloses a volume of fluid in the hose using a roller, pushing it forward).
With respect to claim 4, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the wherein the underpressure generator comprises at least a peristaltic pump (Albin, peristaltic pump 11, fig. 3).
With respect to claim 9, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches a dirty liquid collection tank for collecting liquid, the underpressure generator arrangement being arranged such that the flow draws the liquid from the at least one dirt inlet to the dirty liquid collection tank (De Wit, [0018] explains how the pump pumps the dirty fluid into the container, the container connected to the dirt inlet; dirty fluid container shown in fig. 4).
With respect to claim 10, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the cleaner head comprises at least one cleaning liquid outlet through which cleaning liquid is deliverable (De Wit, cleaning liquid outlet CFC, fig. 1a; [0017]).
With respect to claim 11, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 10 above, and further teaches a cleaning liquid supply comprising a cleaning liquid reservoir for containing the cleaning liquid, the cleaning liquid reservoir being fluidly communicable or in fluid communication with the at least one cleaning liquid outlet (De Wit, cleaning liquid reservoir as a cleaning fluid container, shown in figs 4 and 5, as explained in [0017], connected to outlet CFC).
With respect to claim 13, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the wet cleaning apparatus is a wet mopping device (further describing the preamble of claim 1, which is not limiting, however this is addressed in De Wit as a mop (for a surface) in [0008]).
With respect to claim 17, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the wet cleaning apparatus is a battery-powered wet cleaning apparatus in which the underpressure generator is battery powered (pump is connected to battery in [0018]). Gordon provides further evidence that battery powered cleaning devices are more portable ([0003]), and thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a battery powered pump/underpressure generator, to free the user from the need to connect to a wall outlet, making the apparatus more portable.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit (US 20190380553 A1) in view of Gordon (US 20080047093 A1), Alazet (US 5067199 A) Lubbers (US 20160213214 A1) and Albin (NPL Art. V, prev. cited 10/04/2024), and further in view of Venard (US 20140041146 A1),
With respect to claim 5, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and however does not explicitly teach wherein the underpressure generator arrangement comprises a valve assembly configured to restrict backflow of the fluid towards the at least one dirt inlet at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated.
Venard, in the same field of endeavor, relating to floor cleaning teaches of providing a check valve arrangement [valve assembly], configured to restrict backflow of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated (check valves 42, 50; fig. 2; [0026], prevent fluid from draining out when pump pressure is lost or device is at rest, the check valves are part of the assembly with pump 40, fig. 2; [0026], and as shown in fig. 2, the valves are both upstream and downstream of the pump) Venard teaches that this arrangement eliminates the risk of backflow or pressure loss, and prevents fluid from draining when the device is at rest ([0026]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Wit, such that the underpressure generator arrangement includes the check valve arrangement of Venard, configured to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated, for the purpose of preventing fluid from draining and eliminating the risk of backflow or pressure loss.
With respect to claim 6, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the valve assembly is configured to restrict the backflow of the fluid between the underpressure generator inlet and the at least one dirt inlet (pumps move fluid between an inlet [underpressure generator inlet] and outlet, as pumps move fluid between one inlet and discharges to an outlet; as explained in [0018] of De Wit, the pump moves dirty fluid into the dirty fluid container, and dirty fluid channel DFC is connected via a dirty fluid drain DFD to a dirty fluid container, and with the teachings of Venard, the dirty fluid is prevented from moving from the tank into the dirt inlet/suction channel).
With respect to claim 7, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the valve assembly is configured to, in response to the underpressure generator being deactivated, restrict the backflow of fluid (the valves 42, 50 of Venard, explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, restricts backflow, and as explained in [0026] of Venard this prevents backflow when pressure is lost -which would occur when the pump is off).
With respect to claim 8, De Wit, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the valve assembly comprises a one-way valve configured to prevent the fluid being transported in the direction of the at least one dirt inlet (the valves 42, 50 of Venard, explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, restricts backflow, including the valve 42 of Venard which limits flow towards the dirt inlet)
Claim(s) 12 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit (US 20190380553 A1) in view of Gordon (US 20080047093 A1), Alazet (US 5067199 A) Lubbers (US 20160213214 A1) and Albin (NPL Art. V, prev. cited 10/04/2024), and further in view of Downey (US 6125499 A) and Kasper (US 6446302 B1).
With respect to claim 12, De Wit, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches of wherein the cleaning liquid supply comprises a pump arranged to pump the cleaning liquid from the cleaning liquid reservoir to and through the at least one cleaning liquid outlet (De Wit, pump as described in [0017] which delivers fluid from a container [reservoir] to the cleaning outlet), however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning liquid supply and the underpressure generator are configured such that a flow of the cleaning liquid delivered through the at least one cleaning liquid outlet is lower than the flow provided by the underpressure generator.
Downey, in the same field of endeavor, a related to floor cleaning, teaches of the need to match the flow rate of the fluid supply to the vacuum power to prevent over-wetting (col 8 lines 53-58), and further teaches of the need for a strong vacuum to prevent over-wetting in light of a high water flow (col 3, item 2).
Kasper, in the same field of endeavor, a related to floor cleaning, teaches of the need to balance the power supplied to adjust the solution spray rate and the extraction rate for optimal cleaning (col 11 lines 1-10).
MPEP 2143 provides that selection from a finite number of solutions to a recognized problem would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art [obvious to try]. MPEP 2144.04 provides that routine optimization of a result effective variable would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In light of the problem (the need to balance the cleaning liquid removal flow rate and the delivery rate) and effect taught by both Downey and Kasper (over wetting of the carpet and optimization of cleaning), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected from, a finite number of solutions (flow of under-pressure generator being more, the same, or less than the delivery of cleaning liquid), the solution such that the flow of the cleaning liquid delivered through the at least one cleaning liquid outlet is lower than the flow provided by the underpressure generator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with the selection.
It would also have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have, through routine optimization of a result effective variable, selected a flow rate of the cleaning liquid delivered through the at least one cleaning liquid outlet to be lower than the flow provided by the underpressure generator in light of the problem and effect previously discussed using Downey and Kasper, demonstrating how the flow rates are result effective variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with the selection.
Claim(s) 14-16 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit (US 20190380553 A1) in view of Gordon (US 20080047093 A1), Alazet (US 5067199 A) Lubbers (US 20160213214 A1) and Albin (NPL Art. V, prev. cited 10/04/2024), and further in view of Sutanrii (JP S62258626 A).
With respect to claim 14, De Wit, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the underpressure generator is configured to provide a flow rate through the porous material which is less than or equal to 2000 cm3/minute.
Sutanrii, in the same field of endeavor, as related to floor cleaning, teaches that the flow rate of a vacuum source is a result effective variable, as it has an effect on how much area you can clean through a long hose and the suitability for residential use (page 6, lines 334-346). MPEP 2144.04 provides that routine optimization of a result effective variable would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would also have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have, through routine optimization, selected a flow rate of the underpressure generator through the porous material of De Wit, as modified, to be less than or equal to 2000 cm3/minute, because this has an effect on how long a hose you could clean, and the suitability for residential use, in light of the effect taught by Sutanrii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with the selection.
With respect to claim 15, De Wit, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the underpressure generator is configured to provide a pressure difference, between an inside of the wet cleaning apparatus and atmospheric pressure for drawing the fluid through the porous material and into the at least one dirt inlet (De Wit, under pressure generator connected to dirty fluid tank, located inside apparatus, and is source of pressure difference between inside and outside, based on how pumps work, and further shown in the arrangement explained in the rejection of claim 1 above), however, does not teach of a range of 2000 Pa to 13500 Pa.
Sutanrii, in the same field of endeavor, as related to floor cleaning, teaches that the pressure of a vacuum source is a result effective variable, as it has an effect on how much area you can clean through a long hose (or conduit) and the suitability for residential use (page 6, lines 334-346). MPEP 2144.04 provides that routine optimization of a result effective variable would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would also have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have, through routine optimization, selected a pressure generated by the underpressure generator, to be a range of 2000 Pa to 13500 Pa in De Wit, as modified, because this has an effect on how long a hose/conduit you could clean using, and the suitability for residential use, in light of the effect taught by Sutanrii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with the selection.
With respect to claim 16, De Wit, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and however does not explicitly teach wherein the underpressure generator is configured such that the flow, when the flow is being provided, is in a predefined range.
Sutanrii, in the same field of endeavor, as related to floor cleaning, teaches that the flow rate of a vacuum source has an effect on how much area you can clean through a long hose (or conduit) and the suitability for residential use (page 6, lines 334-346).
It would also have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the underpressure generator of De Wit, a modified, configured such that the flow, when the flow is being provided, is in a predefined range, in order to have an appropriate flow for residential use or for cleaning large areas.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit (US 20190380553 A1) in view of Venard (US 20140041146 A1), Wan (CN 113876245 A) and Lubbers (US 20160213214 A1).
With respect to claim 18, De Wit discloses: A cleaner head for a wet cleaning apparatus, the cleaner head comprising: at least one dirt inlet (DFC, fig. 1A; [0018]) fluidly connected to an underpressure generator (battery powered pump in [0018] connected to dirt inlet/DFC, to a dirty fluid container), a porous material comprising a porous material layer sealingly attached to the at least one dirt inlet (porous material PP, fig. 1A; [0018], sealed (attached) as shown in figure, consistent with instant disclosure); however does not explicitly disclose a valve assembly comprising an additional porous material part arranged between the porous material layer and an underpressure generator outlet of the underpressure generator, wherein the additional porous material part is configured to: permit a flow for drawing fluid through the porous material into the at least one dirt inlet; and restrict backflow towards the porous material layer; wherein the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated. De Wit, however further discloses:
the underpressure generator being activatable to provide a flow for drawing fluid from the at least one dirt inlet to and through the underpressure generator outlet (pump connected to underpressure generator outlet, as in [0018] as it moves fluid to a dirty fluid container shown in fig. 4),
Venard, in the same field of endeavor, relating to floor cleaning teaches of providing a check valve arrangement, configured to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated (check valves 42, 50; fig. 2; [0026], prevent fluid from draining out when pump pressure is lost or device is at rest, the check valves are part of the assembly with pump 40, fig. 2; [0026], and as shown in fig. 2, the valves are both upstream and downstream of the pump) Venard teaches that this arrangement eliminates the risk of backflow or pressure loss, and prevents fluid from draining when the device is at rest ([0026]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Wit, such that the underpressure generator arrangement includes the check valve arrangement of Venard, configured to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated, (and thus includes a valve assembly configured to: permit a flow for drawing fluid through the porous material into the at least one dirt inlet; and restrict backflow towards the porous material layer) configured to restrict passage of the fluid from the underpressure generator outlet towards the at least one dirt inlet (leading to a porous material layer) at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated), for the purpose of preventing fluid from draining and eliminating the risk of backflow or pressure loss. The modification would have resulted in a valve assembly arranged between the porous material layer and an underpressure generator outlet as the valves are both upstream and downstream of the pump, and the pump is upstream of the porous material layer where fluid is drawn at the dirt inlet.
As for the valve assembly comprising an additional porous material, Wan, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a check valve assembly with a porous material (filter 131c, fig. 8, assembled together with check valve 131g, fig. 8; [0129]; examiner notes that the definition of filter is that it is a porous material - see definition of filter from Merriam-Webster attached on 05/09/2025). Wan teaches that this arrangement can prevent impurities in the water from clogging the pipeline and the pump body ([0129])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Wit, such that the valve assembly comprises an additional porous material, for the purpose of preventing impurities from clogging pipelines and pumps. As for the citation that the additional porous material part that is configured to: permit a flow for drawing fluid through the porous material into the at least one dirt inlet; and restrict backflow towards the porous material layer, the examiner submits that filters (as well as other types of obstructions and narrowing of fluid passageways) also present an impedance (restriction) to flow (including backflow - the filter can also prevent backflow of solids by trapping it), and also submits that the filter would permit [at least some] flow through. The modification would have resulted in an additional porous material part arranged between the porous material layer and an underpressure generator outlet of the underpressure generator, at the location of the valves, which are both upstream and downstream of the pump, and the pump is upstream of the porous material layer where fluid is drawn at the dirt inlet.
Regarding the limitation that the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated, as noted above, De Wit provides for a porous material layer (PP, fig. 1A; [0018] - that drains fluid from a surface interaction layer ML). In [0018], De Wit explicitly incorporates by reference Lubbers (US 20160213214 A1), and provides that Lubbers teaches of “suitable components for draining the dirty fluid”.
Lubbers, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning tools, teaches in reference to a porous plastic layer, analogous to that of De Wit, teaches of a porous plastic sheet having pores (PM, fig. 2; [0023]), that the porous plastic allows fluid to pass under underpressure ([0024-0025]), while also preventing collected fluid from draining, allowing flow in one direction only ([0026-0027] provides that the fluid passes one way only [which includes one way flow when the pump is off given the recitation of “only”], and the arrangement provides a benefit in that a pressure difference is created by not allowing fluid to be drained in the opposite direction, meeting the claimed limitation that the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, because of the teaching that fluid passes one way only to maintain/create a pressure difference; this is further evidenced by [0030] which provides that the porous plastic allows for entry of very little to no air, thus maintaining underpressue by limiting air flow).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the porous plastic of Lubbers in De Wit, given that De Wit discloses that the material is suitable, and given the advantages taught by Lubbers in that it ensures continuous generation of underpressure so as to not cause backflow of collected cleaning fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed towards independent claim 1 (response page 6-10), the applicant argues (page 6-7), that in De Wit the porous plastic layer PP, mapped by the examiner to the porous material layer prevents the surface interaction layer ML from getting sucked up into the cleaning device, examiner respectfully disagrees as De Wit does not provide for such teaching and also implies that the plastic layer PP may be omitted (De Wit; [0022]). As for the layer ML, the examiner did not reference that as the porous material layer. The examiner points to Lubbers, which is incorporated by reference by De Wit, which provides for a one-way porous plastic layer, which the examine respectfully submits would meet the limitation that “wherein the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated” because the porous plastic layer prevents backwards flow, by acting one way (which would still be prevented/limited when the pump is off), and also limits air flow, which would provide for the claimed property to occur when the underpressure generator is deactivated.
With respect to Gordon and Vernard (response pages 7-8), the examiner respectfully submits that Gordon and Vernard was not applied to teach the porous material layer or the compressible hose.
With respect to Alazert and Albin (response pages 9-10), the applicant argues that the peristaltic pump only compresses the hose in an active state, and not when disactivated. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the structural arrangement of the pump in Alazert, due to the use of rollers to move the fluid (in the same manner as the instant disclosure), the pump would also compress the hose when deactivated (it would merely stop rotating), unless the pump is completely disassembled to remove the hose (which would be contrary to the teachings of ensuring that backflow is prevented, which creates a seal-less system). Applicant did not identify a structural difference with the pump of Alazert, but rather provided an unsupported argument that deactivation of the pump in Alazert would result in the rollers not compressing the hose. The examiner thus submits that as shown by Alazert, peristaltic pumps are known in the prior art, that the applicant didn’t demonstrate how the claimed underpressure generator or peristaltic pump arrangement is structurally different from the prior art, and have the argued properties, and that to have the pump not compress the hose would require disassembly given how the pump operates by having multiple rollers, arranged to rotate and compress the hose. The examiner did not rely on the teachings of Alazert with respect to the porous material layer. The examiner’s response to the arguments with respect to Albin is similar to that of Alazert, in that the examiner submits that peristaltic pumps are structured such that when deactivated, the hose remains compressed.
Regarding the arguments directed towards independent claim 18 (response page 11-15), the applicant argues that the layer ML in De Wit can not be equated to the claimed porous material layer because it is not in direct contact with the dirty fluid container DFC, however the examiner did not equate the layer ML with the claimed porous material layer (which is mapped to porous plastic PP), and the claim language does not recite any porous material that requires direct contact with a dirty fluid container. Again, the examiner points to Lubbers, which is incorporated by reference by De Wit, which provides for a one-way porous plastic layer, which the examine respectfully submits would meet the limitation that “wherein the porous material layer maintains an underpressure at the at least one dirt inlet, at least when the underpressure generator is deactivated” because the porous plastic layer prevents backwards flow, by acting one way, and also limits air flow, which would provide for the claimed property to occur when the underpressure generator is deactivated.
As for Venard, the examiner respectfully submits that Vernard was not applied to teach the porous material layer. Wan was also not applied to teach the claimed “porous material layer”, but rather an “additional porous material layer” which is claimed to have different properties that the “porous material layer”
No specific arguments were presented for the dependent claims.
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights