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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 September, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 16 September, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 claim limitation(s) is/are: “a supporting device” in claim 1.
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.
Additionally, the limitation from claim 1 of "the first water spray head and the second water spray head can spray water separately or simultaneously" is being interpreted as reciting an intended use that will be satisfied by a device having first and second water spray heads that are capable of spraying water separately or simultaneously.
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 2-5 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the hole diameter of the first water spray pipeline”. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the hole diameter of the second water spray pipeline”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claims 4-5 depend from claim 3 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 11617489, "He") in view of Jiang (CN 206007184U).
1. He teaches a floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function, including
a mop (2) and a mop bucket (1, see He fig. 4),
the mop including a mop rod (rods 21 and 22) and a mop head (23), the mop rod being connected to the mop head (see He fig. 5), wherein the mop bucket has a clean water area and a cleaning area (spray mechanism 5 has a place to store clean water that passes in via intake 57, cleaning is performed in the upper portion of the bucket above spray mechanism 5, see He figs. 1-5 and 10:43-64),
wherein a supporting device (shaft 3) is provided on the mop bucket (3 is on mop bucket 4, see He fig. 1), the supporting device is connected to a pumping device (shaft 3 is connected to drive an impeller of spray mechanism 5, see He fig. 2 and 8:31-48), the mop head is supported on the supporting device for rotational cleaning or dehydration (mop head 23 sits on shaft 3 and is cleaned, see He fig. 5 and 8:31-48), the rotation of the mop head drives the pumping device to pump water (rotation of head 23 in conjunction with shafts 22 and 3 drive impeller to pump water, see He fig. 5, 8:31-48, and 9:4-35), wherein the pumping device includes a first water spray head configured to spray water to the wiping object for cleaning (water spray outlets 531 spray water at a wiper, see He 8:31-48),
wherein the first water spray head is horizontally provided to spray water upward to a bottom of the mop head (water spray outlets 531 are horizontally distributed and spray water upward to a bottom of the mop head, see He figs. 5 and 12).
He does not teach that the pumping device includes a second water spray head located at a different height than the first water spray head, wherein the first water spray head and the second water spray head respectively spray water in different directions, the first water spray head and the second water spray head can spray water separately or simultaneously, and wherein the second water spray head is arranged in a vertical extension to spray water towards the mop head from an outside of the mop head.
However, Jiang teaches an assembly for cleaning a mop (see Jiang figs. 1-2), wherein the assembly includes a first water spray head (19) and a second water spray head (15) located at different heights (19 and 15 are at different heights see Jiang fig. 2), the first water spray head and the second water spray head respectively spray water to the wiping object for cleaning in different directions (nozzle 15 faces inward to clean an outer face of the mop while nozzle 19 faces upward to clean an inner side of the mop, see Jiang Translation [0014]), the first water spray head and the second water spray head can spray water separately or simultaneously (spray heads may spray water at the same time, see Jiang Translation [0014]), and wherein the second water spray head is arranged in a vertical extension to spray water towards the mop head from an outside of the mop head (nozzle 15 is arranged on vertical extension 13 and sprays water towards an outside of the mop head, see Jiang fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jiang regarding the use of multiple spray heads in a mop bucket with the device of He, such that the pumping device includes a first water spray head and a second water spray head located at a different height than the first water spray head, wherein the first water spray head and the second water spray head respectively spray water in different directions, the first water spray head and the second water spray head can spray water separately or simultaneously, and wherein the second water spray head is arranged in a vertical extension to spray water towards the mop head from an outside of the mop head, as doing so would result in reduced water needed for initial cleanings (see Jiang Translation [0014]).
2. He as modified teaches the floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function according to claim 1, wherein the first water spray head is extended outward from the center of the mop bucket (holes 531 of water outlet passage 53 extend in a line from the center, see He fig. 1), the first water spray head is provided with a first water spray pipeline, the first water spray pipeline has a plurality of first water spray holes arranged at intervals, the water spray holes have a hole diameter (holes 531 may also be defined in terms of polar coordinates such that they have a diameter, see He fig. 8), the hole diameter of the first water spray holes is smaller than the diameter of the first water spray pipeline (the minimum diameter of holes 531 is shown as smaller than the largest possible diameter of channel 53, see He figs. 1-2).
3. He as modified teaches the floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function according to claim 2, wherein the second water spray head is located on the side of the first water spray head away from the center of the mop bucket (Jiang teaches that edge-cleaning nozzle 15 is located to a side of bottom cleaning nozzle 19, see Jiang figs. 1-2), and is extended up and down (nozzle 15 has a vertical dimension, see Jiang fig. 2), the second water spray head is provided with a second water spray pipeline (nozzle 15 has a separate pipeline 13, see Jiang fig. 2). Neither He nor Jiang explicitly disclose that the second water spray head includes a plurality of second water spray holes arranged at intervals, the second water spray holes have a hole diameter, and the hole diameter of the second water spray holes is smaller than the hole diameter of the second water spray pipeline. However, He teaches the use of a plurality of water spray holes arranged at intervals (531), the hole diameter of the water spray holes being smaller than the diameter of an associated water spray pipeline (a smaller dimension of holes 531 is shown as larger than a large dimension of channel 53, see He figs. 1-2).
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date when modifying the device of He to incorporate the teachings from Jiang regarding the use of multiple spray heads to use the teachings of an array of water spray holes and relative dimensions of the pipeline to the holes from He such that the second water spray head included a plurality of second water spray holes arranged at intervals, wherein the second water spray pipeline has a hole diameter, wherein the second water spray holes have a hole diameter, and the hole diameter of the second water spray holes is smaller than the hole diameter of the second water spray pipeline, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
4. He as modified teaches the floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function according to claim 3, wherein the first water spray pipeline is connected to the second water spray pipeline (water supply 11 provides water to nozzles 15 and 19 via water lines 13 and 18, respectively, see Jiang figs. 1-2). He as modified does not explicitly teach that the second water spray pipeline is located downstream of the first water spray pipeline. However, He teaches a central pump for the water spray pipeline (water flows from pump 52 to supply line 53 via passage 515 and pipe 54, see He fig. 2 and 10:43-11:12) while Jiang teaches that the water supply for the nozzles comes from a peripheral area (water supply 11 provides water to both 15 and 19 in that order, see Jiang figs. 1-2). Integrating the additional nozzle from Jiang into the invention of He would result in a central water supply sending water to the upward-facing nozzle and the side-facing nozzle in the order opposite that shown by Jiang, such that the second water spray pipeline would be located downstream of the first water spray pipeline, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
5. He as modified teaches the floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function according to claim 4, but does not teach that the diameter of the first water spray pipeline is larger than the diameter of the second water spray pipeline. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of He as modified such that the diameter of the first water spray pipeline was larger than the diameter of the second water spray pipeline, since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
8. He as modified teaches the floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function according to claim 7, characterized in that the mop bucket includes a clean water area and a cleaning area (spray mechanism 5 has a chamber that stores clean water that passes in via intake 57, cleaning is performed in the upper portion of the bucket above spray mechanism 5, see He figs. 1-5 and 10:43-64), a partition is provided between the clean water area and the cleaning area (upper housing 511 separates chamber from spray area, see He fig. 3), the supporting device passes through the partition to connect the clean water area and the cleaning area (shaft 3 passes through 511 and is in contact with both the spray area above 511 and the clean water chamber via impeller 52, see He figs. 2 and 11), a fixing groove is provided on the partition (groove 516 is provided on 511, see He fig. 11), the first water spray head is provided in the fixing groove (517 sits on 516, see He figs. 8 and 11), a water hole is provided in the fixing groove, and the water hole is connected with the pumping device and the first water spray pipeline (inlet 532 in passage 516 is connected to pump 52 via pipe 54, see He figs. 2 and 11 and 10:17-27).
9. He as modified teaches the floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function according to claim 8, wherein a first surrounding frame is provided in the fixing groove, a second surrounding frame is provided on the first water spray head, the first surrounding frame and the second surrounding frame are fitted and fixed to each other, so that a first water spray pipeline is formed inside the first surrounding frame or the second surrounding frame (water spray pipeline 53 is defined when the frame around groove 516 and frame 517 are fixed to each other, see He figs. 2 and 6-11 and 10:17-27).
10. He as modified teaches a floor cleaning tool with water spray cleaning function according to claim 9, wherein the mop bucket further includes a sewage area, the sewage area is not connected to the clean water area, and the sewage generated by the mop head flows into the sewage area (He teaches the use of a dedicated water tank 8 for receiving fouled water that is sealed against the clean water intake, see He figs. 12-13, 5:40-52, and 11:19-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because He and Jiang teach different improvements over the prior art, one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine their teachings to obtain the claimed invention. In doing so, applicant appears to be arguing that a combination of the references would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as adding the additional structure of Jiang would run counter to the desire for simplicity stated by He. However, it has been held that “[a]lthough statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device with added function.” In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Because “[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, applicant has not established how a modification of He to add an additional spray head would necessitate the expansion of the bucket. Although Jiang teaches a bucket with separate cleaning and drying positions, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill would have been able to modify the system of He to incorporate an additional nozzle without significantly expanding the volume of the bucket.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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.
/J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723