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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species 1 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 08/07/2024 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, the document accompanying the lined-out foreign patent reference does not fulfill the concise-explanation requirement because it does not contain any explanation of relevance, nor an English abstract or translation. MPEP § 609.04(a)(III). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “radially inwardly extending portion” (claim 2) must be shown or the features should be canceled from the claim. Examiner notes that the features near reference 92 of Fig. 12 do not appear to be the “radially inwardly extending portion” because those features do not extend radially.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant is advised that although the drawings are sufficiently clear for examination purposes (particularly, the version deposited in the SCORE database), it is Examiner’s understanding that should this application issue as a patent, the drawings published on the issued patent will look exactly like those in the U.S. Patent Application Publication (US 20240391084 A1), unless Applicant resubmits the drawings in a different format. That is, due to the submitted format of the drawings, Figs. 1-57 are dithered and in grayscale/halftones, where lines and text intended to be solid, clean, and black appear jagged and grayed, and artifacts (e.g., gray patches and/or dithering in areas that are expected to be blank or white) obscure the drawings. This loss of quality can be seen by comparing the drawings in the SCORE database with those in the U.S. Patent Application Publication.
The drawings are not objected to at this time for clarity. Nevertheless, Examiner suggests submitting clearer drawings for the purpose of proper notice to the general public (Examiner is aware that drawings in the SCORE database are accessible by the public via Patent Center). Applicant should note the following drawing standards:
Black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1);
Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l);
The clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20220212385 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20240416372 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“releaseably” (claim 1, line 17; claim 14, line 14, claim 19, line 17) should be changed to --releasably--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 13-18 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 13 recites the limitation “wherein the locking projection is planar with the longitudinally extending walls.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Does this mean that the locking projection is planar (e.g., has a planar feature) like the longitudinally extending wall, or that it resides in the same plane as the longitudinally extending walls, or something else? Examiner notes that the term “planar” or “plane” is not present in the specification and only appears in claim 13. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claims 14-18 are indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the...third axially extending cavit[y]” (claim 14, lines 18-19), claims 15-18 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 14.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Serio
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070017072 A1 (“Serio”).
Regarding claim 1, Serio discloses a locking mechanism for the removable attachment of a cleaning head to a handle (Fig. 2, locking mechanism 60 capable of attaching a cleaning head to a handle (see Fig. 1); ¶¶ 0025, 0026), the locking mechanism including:
a female attachment portion affixed to the cleaning head and having a first axially extending cavity extending longitudinally in an insertion direction, and a receptacle extending through a wall of the female attachment portion, wherein an axis extends through the receptacle perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Figs. 1-2, female attachment portion 64 is affixed to cleaning head 26, having axial cavity 98 and receptacle 106 with an axis perpendicular (y) to the longitudinal direction x);
and a male attachment portion having a first portion configured to be received in the first axially extending cavity of the female attachment portion for removable engagement with the female attachment portion, and a second portion configured to be attached to the handle (Figs. 1-4, male attachment portion 62 with first portion 70 removably engages with cavity 98 of female attachment portion 64, second portion 66 is capable of being attached to a handle 22),
the first portion having a front face with longitudinally extending walls having respective first and second ends and a longitudinally extending locking projection between the longitudinally extending walls and spaced therefrom to define a longitudinal gap between each longitudinally extending wall and a respective side of the longitudinally extending locking projection (Figs. 1-4, 7, longitudinal walls (at reference 78 and opposite side) with first ends (near reference 78) and second ends (near reference 72), locking projection 84, and gaps between projection 84 and longitudinal walls; locking projection 206 (Fig. 7); see discussion below re Fig. 7),
the locking projection being resiliently deflectable in a deflection direction parallel to the axis and perpendicular to the insertion direction to engage the receptacle in the female attachment portion so as to releas[]ably lock the cleaning head and the handle together (Figs. 1-4, 7, locking projection 84 resiliently deflectable in y direction and releasably locks in receptacle 106; locking projection 206 (Fig. 7); see discussion below re Fig. 7),
wherein the locking projection has a fixed end proximate the first ends of the longitudinally extending walls, a free end, and a radially outwardly projecting catch proximate the free end that engages the receptacle (Fig. 7, fixed end (at reference 208) and free end (rightmost end of projection 206), radially outwardly projecting catch (at reference 206) engages receptacle 106; see discussion below re Fig. 7),
and wherein the free end is longitudinally spaced from the second ends of the longitudinally extending walls to form an axially opening recess between the longitudinally extending walls that opens from the second ends of the longitudinally extending walls to the free end (Fig. 7, free end (rightmost end of projection 206) is longitudinally spaced from the second ends, forming recess; see discussion below re Fig. 7).
Serio teaches different embodiments of a locking mechanism that are slight variations of each other. And though the embodiment of Serio Fig. 7 is different from that of Serio Fig. 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of these two embodiment because Serio specifically contemplates these alternative designs that are compatible with each other except for certain mutually exclusive features (see Serio ¶ 0036, describing the embodiment of Figs. 3-4, relying on similar features and functionality as the embodiments of Figs. 1 and 2; Serio Figs. 5, 6A-B, describing other variations of the locking projection). Here, Serio describes the different features of the locking projection of Fig. 7 without discussing the other features of the overall locking mechanism, which are relied upon from Fig. 2. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the locking projection of Fig. 7 in place of the locking projection of Fig. 2, while maintaining the remainder of the design as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 2, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein each longitudinally extending wall includes a radially inwardly extending portion at the respective second end (Figs. 1-4, 7, longitudinal walls include a radially inwardly extending portion at the second end (near reference 72)).
Regarding claim 5, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the female and the male attachment portions each have substantially triangular cross-sections to prevent rotation of the handle relative to the cleaning head when engaged (¶ 0033, disclosing triangular cross-section for the female and male attachment portions).
Regarding claim 7, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the female and male attachment portions each have corresponding alignment members for aligning and restricting relative rotation of the male attachment portion relative to the female attachment portion (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0033, shapes of the female and male attachment portions (reference 100/102) as shown prevent relative rotation).
Regarding claim 8, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 7 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the alignment member of the female attachment portion is a groove and the alignment member of the male attachment portion is a projection extending substantially along a length of the male attachment member (Figs. 1-4, female attachment portion groove 100/102 and male attachment portion projection 70; ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 9, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the female attachment portion is integrally formed with the cleaning head (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0024, “Alternatively, the brush head 26 can be coupled to the base 36 by...integral manufacture of the brush 26 and base 36.”).
Regarding claim 10, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the male attachment portion includes a stop for preventing over insertion of the handle in the male attachment portion (Figs. 1-4, handle stop (at reference 74 prevents over insertion of handle 22, alternatively, stop (near reference 126 (Fig. 4; see Figs. 5, 6A) is capable of preventing over insertion of a handle that is inserted into cavity 92).
Regarding claim 13, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the locking projection is planar with the longitudinally extending walls (Figs. 1-4, 7, locking projection 206 has a planar upper surface and planar side walls).
To the extent Serio does not disclose this limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the locking projection 206 (Fig. 7) to have planar side walls, such as that shown in Fig. 6B because this is merely a design choice for the shape of the locking projection (see Figs. 1-5, 6A-B, 8A-B, 9A-B, showing different shapes for the locking projection). Applicant has not disclosed that the recited limitation “the locking projection is planar with the longitudinally extending walls” provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this positioning as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 19, Serio discloses a locking mechanism for the removable attachment of a cleaning head to a handle (Fig. 2, locking mechanism 60 capable of attaching a cleaning head to a handle (see Fig. 1); ¶¶ 0025, 0026), the locking mechanism including:
a female attachment portion affixed to the cleaning head and having a first axially extending cavity extending longitudinally in an insertion direction, and a receptacle extending through a wall of the female attachment portion, wherein an axis extends through the receptacle perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Figs. 1-2, female attachment portion 64 is affixed to cleaning head 26, having axial cavity 98 and receptacle 106 with an axis perpendicular (y) to the longitudinal direction x);
and a male attachment portion having a first portion configured to be received in the first axially extending cavity of the female attachment portion for removable engagement with the female attachment portion, and a second portion configured to be attached to the handle (Figs. 1-4, male attachment portion 62 with first portion 70 removably engages with cavity 98 of female attachment portion 64, second portion 66 is capable of being attached to a handle 22),
the first portion having a front face with longitudinally extending walls having respective first and second ends and a longitudinally extending locking projection between the longitudinally extending walls and spaced therefrom to define a longitudinal gap between each longitudinally extending wall and a respective side of the longitudinally extending locking projection (Figs. 1-4, 7, longitudinal walls (at reference 78 and opposite side) with first ends (near reference 78) and second ends (near reference 72), locking projection 84, and gaps between projection 84 and longitudinal walls; locking projection 206 (Fig. 7); see discussion below re Fig. 7),
the locking projection being resiliently deflectable in a deflection direction parallel to the axis and perpendicular to the insertion direction to engage the receptacle in the female attachment portion so as to releas[]ably lock the cleaning head and the handle together (Figs. 1-4, 7, locking projection 84 resiliently deflectable in y direction and releasably locks in receptacle 106; locking projection 206 (Fig. 7); see discussion below re Fig. 7),
wherein the locking projection has a fixed end proximate the first ends of the longitudinally extending walls, a free end, and a radially outwardly projecting catch projecting from an upper surface of the locking projection proximate the free end to engage the receptacle (Fig. 7, fixed end (at reference 208) and free end (rightmost end of projection 206), radially outwardly projecting catch (at reference 206) engages receptacle 106; see discussion below re Fig. 7).
The obviousness rationale for claim 19 (combining the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 7) is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 19 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the free end is longitudinally spaced from the second ends of the longitudinally extending walls to form an axially opening recess between the longitudinally extending walls that opens from the second ends of the longitudinally extending walls to the free end (Fig. 7, free end (rightmost end of projection 206) is longitudinally spaced from the second ends, forming recess; see discussion below re Fig. 7).
The obviousness rationale for claim 20 (combining the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 7) is the same as for claim 19.
Serio in view of Miller
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070017072 A1 (“Serio”) in view of US 8322764 B2 (“Miller”).
Serio pertains to a cleaning device with a locking mechanism (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Miller pertains to a modular tool handle assembly, including for brooms (Abstr.; Fig. 1; 1:13-17). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 3, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio does not explicitly disclose wherein the male attachment portion includes an inner wall in a second axially extending cavity forming a non-communicating portion that closes an inner end of the second axially extending cavity and serves as a stop. However, the Serio/Miller combination makes obvious this claim.
Miller discloses wherein the male attachment portion includes an inner wall in a second axially extending cavity forming a non-communicating portion that closes an inner end of the second axially extending cavity and serves as a stop (Figs. 3-4, portion 110 has inner wall 116 in cavity 117 that closes the inner end of cavity 117 and serves as a stop against an insertable portion or handle 201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Miller with Serio by modifying an inner wall of Serio (near reference 126 (Fig. 4)) to be entirely closed. The Serio design is capable of accepting a handle in cavity 92 (Fig. 2) and has a stop (near reference 126 (Fig. 4), see Figs. 5, 6A), but closing the stop wall would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would make that structure stronger and more resistant against damage due to handle axial forces.
Serio in view of Wall
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070017072 A1 (“Serio”) in view of US 5066162 A (“Wall”).
Serio pertains to a cleaning device with a locking mechanism (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Wall pertains to an attachment device for a mop head brooms (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio does not explicitly disclose wherein the male attachment portion includes one or more bores extending substantially along a length of a second axially extending cavity and opening into the second axially extending cavity to provide a tolerance for handles having a diameter larger than a diameter of the second axially extending cavity. However, the Serio/Wall combination makes obvious this claim.
Wall discloses wherein the male attachment portion includes one or more bores extending substantially along a length of a second axially extending cavity and opening into the second axially extending cavity to provide a tolerance for handles having a diameter larger than a diameter of the second axially extending cavity (Fig. 1, bores 14; 2:46-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wall with Serio by modifying the second axially extending cavity 92 to include the bores of Wall because this would allow for accommodation of inserted handles having varying diameters (Wall 2:46-50, “The arrangement of bridging ribs 15 and slots 14 allows the diameter of the channel 13 defined by the boss 12 to be resiliently increased when desired. The boss 12 can therefore securely accommodate a range of pole diameters in the channel 13.”).
Serio in view of Tomm
Claims 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070017072 A1 (“Serio”) in view of US 5161278 A (“Tomm”).
Serio pertains to a cleaning device with a locking mechanism (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Tomm pertains to a cleaning device with a locking mechanism (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 11, Serio makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1 as applied above. Serio does not explicitly disclose a cap attached to the male attachment portion, the cap having a first end with a cross-section matching a cross-section of the handle and a second end with a cross-section matching the cross-section of the male attachment portion. However, the Serio/Tomm combination makes obvious this claim.
Tomm discloses a cap attached to the male attachment portion, the cap having a first end with a cross-section matching a cross-section of the handle and a second end with a cross-section matching the cross-section of the male attachment portion (Figs. 4-5, cap 78 with first end matching handle 14 cross-section and second end (near reference 82) matching male attachment portion 24’ cross section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Tomm with Serio by adding a cap as recited to the male attachment portion (at reference 66) of Serio, abutting against and matching the geometry of ledge 74. This would have been obvious because the cap provides additional structural support to the handle (e.g., in the radial direction) and would help prevent damage to the male attachment portion (e.g., damage to hole 92 if the cap were not present).
Regarding claim 12, the Serio/Tomm combination makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 11 as applied above. Serio further discloses (as modified by Tomm in claim 11) wherein the first end of the cap has a substantially circular cross-section and the second end of the cap has a substantially triangular cross-section (Figs. 1-4, first end of cap (positioned near reference 92) has circular cross section to accommodate round handles, and the second end of the cap abuts against and matches the geometry of ledge 74 for support, which has a triangular cross section; ¶ 0033).
The obviousness rationale for claim 12 is the same as for claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Serio discloses a cleaning device including a cleaning head, a handle, and a locking mechanism for the removable attachment of the cleaning head to the handle (Fig. 2, locking mechanism 60 capable of attaching cleaning head 26 to handle 22 (see Fig. 1); ¶¶ 0025, 0026), the locking mechanism including:
a female attachment portion affixed to the cleaning head and having a first axially extending cavity extending longitudinally in an insertion direction, and a receptacle extending through a wall of the female attachment portion, wherein an axis extends through the receptacle perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Figs. 1-2, female attachment portion 64 is affixed to cleaning head 26, having axial cavity 98 and receptacle 106 with an axis perpendicular (y) to the longitudinal direction x);
a male attachment portion having a first end adapted to be received in the first axially extending cavity, a second end, a ledge between the first and second ends having a first and second side, a first portion defined between the ledge and the first end, a second portion defined between the ledge and the second end, and a second axially extending cavity in the second portion opening to the second end (Figs. 1-4, male attachment portion 62 with first end 72 and first portion 70, which removably engages with cavity 98 of female attachment portion 64, second end 68 and second portion 66, ledge 74 with first and second sides (second side at reference 74, first side is opposite), second cavity 92),
the first portion having a locking projection engageable with the receptacle to releas[]ably lock the male attachment portion to the female attachment portion (Figs. 1-4, 7, locking projection 84, and gaps between projection 84 and longitudinal walls; locking projection 84 resiliently deflectable in y direction and releasably locks in receptacle 106; locking projection 206 (Fig. 7); see discussion below re Fig. 7);
wherein the first side of the ledge is configured to abut an end of the female attachment portion (Figs. 1-4, first side of ledge 74 abuts end 96 of female attachment portion 64).
Serio does not explicitly disclose:
a cap removably secured by a fastener to the male attachment portion,
wherein the handle extends through the second and third axially extending cavities.
However, the Serio/Tomm combination makes obvious this claim.
Tomm discloses:
a cap removably secured by a fastener to the male attachment portion (Figs. 4-5, cap 78 is removably secured to male attachment portion 24’ by fastener threads 82/76),
wherein the handle extends through the second and third axially extending cavities (Figs. 4-5, handle 14 extends through second cavity of male attachment portion 24’ and third cavity of cap 78; see § 112(b) rejection re “the...third axially extending cavit[y]”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 14 is the same as for claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, the Serio/Tomm combination makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 14 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the female and male attachment portions each have corresponding alignment members for aligning and restricting relative rotation of the male attachment portion relative to the female attachment portion (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0033, shapes of the female and male attachment portions (reference 100/102) as shown prevent relative rotation).
Regarding claim 16, the Serio/Tomm combination makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 15 as applied above. Serio further discloses wherein the alignment member of the female attachment portion is a groove and the alignment member of the male attachment portion is a projection extending from the ledge and the first end (Figs. 1-4, female attachment portion groove 100/102 and male attachment portion projection 70 extending from ledge 74 and first end 72; ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 18, the Serio/Tomm combination makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 14 as applied above. Serio further discloses where the cap has a first cap end extending past the second end of the male attachment portion (as modified by Tomm, cap 78 extends past the second end (Tomm Fig. 6)), a second cap end that abuts the second side of the ledge (as modified by Tomm, the cap abuts the second side of ledge 74), and a third axially extending cavity in which the second portion of the male attachment portion is disposed (as modified by Tomm, the third cavity of cap 78 has the second portion 66 of the male attachment portion disposed within).
Serio in view of Tomm and Wall
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070017072 A1 (“Serio”) in view of US 5161278 A (“Tomm”) and US 5066162 A (“Wall”).
Serio pertains to a cleaning device with a locking mechanism (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Tomm pertains to a cleaning device with a locking mechanism (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6). Wall pertains to an attachment device for a mop head brooms (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 17, the Serio/Tomm combination makes obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 14 as applied above. Serio and Tomm do not explicitly disclose wherein the male attachment portion includes one or more bores extending substantially along a length of the second axially extending cavity and opening into the second axially extending cavity to provide a tolerance for handles having a diameter larger than a diameter of the second axially extending cavity. However, the Serio/Tomm/Wall combination makes obvious this claim.
Wall discloses wherein the male attachment portion includes one or more bores extending substantially along a length of the second axially extending cavity and opening into the second axially extending cavity to provide a tolerance for handles having a diameter larger than a diameter of the second axially extending cavity (Fig. 1, bores 14; 2:46-50).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 4, but depending from claim 14.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 6 has been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723