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 Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the porous material is arranged to be contacted by the cleaning liquid applicator material”. This is opposite of claim 1, which recites “the at least one cleaning liquid outlet is spatially separated from the porous material layer through air gaps.” The examiner does not see an example in the many different embodiments where there is an air gap as well as the porous material contacts the cleaning liquid material. Further, from the disclosure of the instant application, the Examiner does not understand how the two statements can both be true.
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, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wisner (US 3,195,166) in view of Dotsko (US 3,816,868).
Regarding claim 1, Wisner discloses a cleaner head for a wet cleaning apparatus, the cleaner head comprising:
at least one cleaning liquid outlet (Item 66) through which a cleaning liquid is deliverable;
at least one dirt inlet (Item 60) for receiving dirty liquid from a surface to be cleaned; and
a porous material (Item 28)covering the at least one dirt inlet, the porous material comprising a porous material layer (defined as a sponge), a liquid pick-up region (Figure 11, top of Item 38) of the porous material layer being delimited by a sealing attachment (Items 40/42) of the porous material layer around the at least one dirt inlet, wherein the liquid pick-up region is arranged relative to each of the at least one cleaning liquid outlet such that the liquid pick-up region is bypassed by the cleaning liquid delivered towards the surface to be cleaned.
Wisner fails to explicitly disclose the at least one cleaning liquid outlet is spatially separated from the porous material layer through air gaps.
Dotsko teaches a cleaner head wherein the at least one cleaning liquid outlet is spatially separated from the porous material layer through air gaps (Figure 2 Items 11 and 25 are separated). 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 layout of Wisner to allow an air gap separating the liquid outlet (and foam pad under) from the porous layer as taught by Dotsko. Different surfaces might not be flat, Dotsko discusses how different shaped surfaces may benefit from Dotsko’s layout (Column 2 Lines 47-50). Having a space between the two parts would ensure both components contact the surface to be cleaned without the possibility of having one component lift off and not perform optimal cleaning.
To the Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s use of bypass in the instant application “e.g. pass around a periphery of”
Regarding claim 2, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 1, comprising at least one cleaning liquid dispensing part (Wisner Item 68) in which the at least one cleaning liquid outlet is provided, wherein each of the at least one cleaning liquid dispensing part is spatially separated from the liquid pick-up region (Item 68 is a tube to deliver fluid to the surface instead of just sponge material).
Regarding claim 3, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 1, comprising a cleaning liquid applicator material adjacent the at least one cleaning liquid outlet (Wisner Item 38), the cleaning liquid applicator material being arranged to apply the cleaning liquid to the surface to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 5, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 3, wherein the cleaning liquid applicator material is detachable from each of the at least one cleaning liquid outlet (the sponge can be removed by unthreading fastener 86; Wisner).
Regarding claim 7, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 1, wherein the porous material comprises one or more further porous material layers (Wisner Items 40 and 42 are described being “flexible foamed plastic”).
Regarding claim 9, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 3, wherein a detachable element (Wisner Item 30) comprises the cleaning liquid applicator material (the fluid flows through channel 6, best shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 1, comprising a support (Wisner Item 32) for supporting the porous material, wherein the cleaner head comprises a detachable member comprising the porous material layer (Item 30), with detachment of the detachable member separating the porous material layer from the support.
Regarding claim 13, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 1, wherein the sealing attachment of the porous material layer around the at least one dirt inlet is implemented by gluing and/or welding the porous material layer around the at least one dirt inlet (Wisner Column 3 Lines 62-67, please note this is an apparatus claim and “any conventional material” includes glues and liquid gaskets to form hardened gaskets).
Regarding claim 14, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the wet cleaning apparatus comprising: the cleaner head of claim 1; and an under pressure generator for supplying suction to the at least one covered dirt inlet (Wisner Column 2 Lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 15, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the wet cleaning apparatus of claim 14, wherein the wet cleaning apparatus is a wet mopping device (as discussed above, water is delivered by Item 22, Further “or” statement leaves this the only requirement of the claim),
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisner (US 3,195,166) in view of Dotsko (US 3,816,868) in view of Garza (US 20090110890).
Regarding claim 6, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 1. Wisner fails to explicitly disclose wherein the porous material comprises a plurality of differently colored layers, which layers are progressively worn by use of the cleaner head such that the color of the porous material serves as a wear indicator.
Garza teaches a cleaner sponge wherein the porous material comprises a plurality of differently colored layers, which layers are progressively worn by use of the cleaner head such that the color of the porous material serves as a wear indicator (Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wisner to include the wear indication as taught by Garza. Wisner discusses the ability of replacing the sponge pad (Wisner Column 4 Lines 52-54). However it is difficult to understand when to replace an item like a sponge and giving the user a visual indication is an easy way to allow a user to understand when to replace an item (Garza Paragraphs 3-7).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisner (US 3,195,166) in view of Dotsko (US 3,816,868) in view of Kurose (US 2,893,044)
Regarding claim 8, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 7. Wisner fails to explicitly disclose a detachable element comprising the one or more further porous material layers, with detachment of the detachable element separating the one or more further porous material layers included in the detachable element from the porous material layer (Wisner leaves the connection of Items 40 and 42 to known fastening methods).
Kurose teaches a cleaning head wherein a detachable element (Items 25 and 11) comprising the one or more further porous material layers (Items 19 and 23), with detachment of the detachable element separating the one or more further porous material layers included in the detachable element from the porous material layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mechanical fastening means of Kurose to hold the plurality of cleaning elements together. Such a modification would allow a user to easily disassemble the cleaning head and easily replace various parts of the cleaning head.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisner (US 3,195,166) in view of Dotsko (US 3,816,868) in view of DeWitt (US 2019/0380553)
Regarding claim 11, Wisner in view of Dotsko disclose the cleaner head of claim 1, comprising:
a portion for facing the surface to be cleaned (Figure 2).
Wisner fails to explicitly disclose a protruding element mounted adjacent the portion, the protruding element protruding from the cleaner head in the direction of the surface to be cleaned, wherein the protruding element comprises the porous material, wherein the cleaner head comprises a further portion for facing the surface to be cleaned, and wherein the protruding element is mounted between the portion and the further portion, 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.
De Witt teaches a cleaner head comprising a portion for facing the surface to be cleaned (Figure 3 support pictured in black) and a protruding element mounted adjacent the portion (Item cmf to the far left and right), the protruding element protruding from the cleaner head in the direction of the surface to be cleaned, wherein the protruding element comprises the porous material (foam and microfiber is permeable), wherein the cleaner head comprises a further portion (FMF in center) for facing the surface to be cleaned, and wherein the protruding element is mounted between the portion and the further portion, 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. 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 shape of Wisner to include the shape/material layers of De Witt. Such a modification would allow a user to use various material properties to affect the level of scrubbing/abrasive delivered to the surface intended to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 12, Wisner in view of Dotsko in view of De Witt disclose the cleaner head of claim 11, wherein the protruding element has a curved surface (De Witt Figure 3) arranged to contact the surface to be cleaned,
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Wisner – 102 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 Wisner in view of Dotsko.
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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 at (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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723