DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 26 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of De Wit in view of Lubbers and Lu, as previously applied, and further in view of Jupp and Lee, as discussed below.
The applicant also argues (Section II of Remarks) that the prior art does not read on the protruding element being detachably mounted between the portion and the further portion with the protruding element comprising a porous material layer. De Wit does provide the structure that is capable of reading on the amended claim limitation, with opposed outer sections of CMF (Fig. 3) reading on the portion and further portion, with the protruding portion formed of porous material FMF that protrudes therebetween. Further, the secondary teachings to make the layers (CMF and FMF) removable from the head of De Wit are clearly provided in the rejections (as previously rejected) to add the advantage of being able to replace and/or clean the layers that contact the surface. Thus, the portion of FMF in the central area, which protrudes from the cleaner head between outer portions CMF, is considered to read on the claimed protruding element that is detachably mounted adjacent the portion (outer areas with layers CMF below FMF).
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 1-3, 6, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit et al. (2019/0380553) in view of Lubbers et al. (2016/0213214), Lu et al. (9,265,396), Lee et al. (2020/015644) and Jupp et al. (2022/0039628).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, De Wit discloses a wet cleaning apparatus (Fig. 6), comprising: a cleaner head (Fig. 2A-3 and N in Fig. 6) comprising: a portion (one of the laterally outer portions CMF) and a further portion (other of the outer portions CMF) for facing the surface to be cleaned; a protruding element (central portion of CMF or FMF in Fig. 3), wherein the protruding element is mounted between the portion and the further portion, the protruding element protruding from the cleaner head in the direction of the surface to be cleaned, wherein the protruding element comprises a porous material layer (FMF and CMF both disclosed as microfiber in paragraph 33, which is known in the art to be porous); and at least one dirt inlet (openings in the head designated at arrows DF in Fig. 3) for receiving dirty liquid from the surface to be cleaned when suction is applied to the at least one dirt inlet, said porous material layer covering the at least one dirt inlet (clearly shown to be provided over the inlets), wherein the protruding element is arranged to permit the cleaner head to be rocked on the protruding element to cause the portion to contact the surface to be cleaned; and an underpressure generator (pump as disclosed in paragraph 18) for supplying suction to the at least one covered dirt inlet. However, De Wit fails to specifically disclose that the porous material (FMF or CMF) is detachably mounted to the cleaning head. The examiner previously took official notice, which was traversed by the applicant, that it is nearly universal for cleaning heads that use any form of fabric as an external cleaning surface will detachably mount the fabric thereto, to allow for cleaning and/or replacement of the cleaning fabric. As evidence to support the traversed statement of official notice, both of Lubbers and Lu provide suction cleaners with microfiber cleaning materials, with plural layers taught by Lu, both being similar function and structure to De Witt, and both teach that the cloth can be removably attached, “to give freedom of easy cleaning and replacement of dirty cloth” (paragraph 17 of Lubbers) and may be disposable or washable and machine dried, as well as provided with a removable backing (Col. 11, lines 13-23 of Lu). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the porous material(s) disclosed by De Wit, and defining the protruding element, to be detachably mounted to the cleaning head (in any known manner, such as mechanical connections like slips or hook and loop fasteners), as taught by Lubbers and Lu, to allow for removal for replacement or cleaning of the cleaning material, which will provide the advantage of reusable cloths that may be refreshed by cleaning, as needed, to maintain optimal cleaning performance.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
379
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the previously added limitations (filed 11/13/2025), that the protruding element has a smaller area of contact with the surface than the portion, the area of contact will be dependent on the orientation and use of the cleaner head, as well as properties of the surface being cleaned. The shape provided by De Wit would obviously be capable of being oriented to define a smaller area of contact with the protruding element, either by tilting the head in a manner that only the portion is contacting the surface (making any contact area of the portion, greater than zero contact area of the protrusion), contacting the edge of a surface (shown here in A, with X as the contact area of the protrusion and Y as the contact area of the portion); such as the edge at a step or transition) or when engaging an uneven surface (shown in B, such as cleaning over a transition or threshold between adjacent floor surfaces).
Regarding the new limitation (filed 26 February 2026), De Wit discloses a cleaning liquid supply (CFF) that supplies cleaning liquid to a first cleaning liquid distribution strip (CFC1) located within the portion and a second cleaning liquid distribution strip (CFC2) located within the further portion, which would obviously require some form of first and second conduits to extend from the liquid supply (CFF) to supply the two separate liquid distribution strips that are spaced from one another. However, De Wit fails to disclose any specific structure to supply the liquid thereto. Each of Lee and Jupp disclose other floor cleaning devices, with cleaning heads each having a pair of liquid supply components (149 of Lee/106 and 108 of Jupp) and both teaching that the liquid is supplied to the liquid supply components via a single tube (284 of Lee/G of Jupp) that are connected to the liquid supply container (200/A) and both tubes bifurcating (at 285/C, respectively) into first and second tubes (286 and 287/D and E) to feed the respective liquid supply components. Such a liquid display configuration, including a single tube bifurcating into two separate tubes to supply different liquid supply components is very common and well known in the art, with minimal other options to supply more than one liquid supply components from a single source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar supply tube (as CFF of De Wit) to bifurcate into first and second tubes, as is well known in the art and taught by Lee and Jupp, to provide the cleaning fluid to the two opposed cleaning liquid distribution strips (CFC1, CFC2) of De Wit.
Regarding claim 2, De Wit further discloses that the cleaner head being thereby permitted to be rocked forwards on the protruding element to cause the portion to contact the surface to be cleaned, and backwards to cause the further portion to contact the surface to be cleaned
Regarding claim 3, De Wit further discloses that the protruding element may alternatively have a rounded shape at the central protruding portion (paragraph 27), which would obviously provide a curved surface arranged to contact the surface to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 6, De Wit further discloses that the porous material comprises a porous material layer sealingly attached (“airtight connection” disclosed in paragraph 33) to the at least one dirt inlet.
Regarding claim 10, De Wit further discloses at least one cleaning liquid outlet through which cleaning liquid is deliverable (inherently necessary for the liquid delivery shown by arrows CF in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, De Wit further discloses a cleaning liquid applicator material (outer CMF portions) included on the portion (see rejections under 112 above), the cleaning liquid applicator material being arranged to apply the cleaning liquid to the surface to be cleaned, wherein the porous material is arranged to be contacted by the cleaning liquid applicator material
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit et al. (2019/0380553) in view of Lubbers et al. (2016/0213214) and Lu et al. (9,265,396) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Toyoshima et al. (4,958,406).
Regarding claim 15, De Wit further discloses that underpressure may be provided by a pump, as discussed supra, which will inherently be provided at a predefined range. However, De Wit fails to disclose any specific range. Toyoshima discloses that it is well known in the art of vacuum cleaners that the suction flow may be variable to adapt to different floor surfaces, levels of clogging of the filter and desired noise levels to optimize cleaning functions and meet a user’s needs (Col. 2, line 48 – Col. 3, line 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the cleaner of De Wit with a similar suction fan controller, providing predefined (by the control operations) flow rate, as taught by Toyoshima to optimize cleaning functions and meet a user’s needs, wherein such a controller would obviously be capable of providing any range of flow, including the claimed range of 15-2000cm3/minute.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 19 May 2026
Prosecution Insights