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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the diffuser is disposed inside the rotational axis of the duster” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the 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.
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wet duster module” in Claims 1-19 and “module housing” in Claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. WO 2021/101036 A1 (hereafter Kwak et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 1] A wet duster module of a cleaner (vacuum cleaner with cleaner head body shown in Figures 2-7), which mops and cleans a foreign substance on a floor, the wet duster module comprising:
a module housing (housing 10) coupled to a cleaner main body (cleaner body 1), forming an appearance (Figures 2 and 3), and forming a space therein (best shown in Figure 4);
a water tank (water tank 100) coupled to the module housing and storing water therein (Figure 4);
at least one rotational cleaning part (rotating part 700) disposed at the bottom of the module housing (Figures 2 and 3) and coupled to a duster (cleaning member 750);
a heat generator (heating member 330) configured to heat water supplied from the water tank; and
a diffuser (nozzle 210) connected to the heat generator to supply the heated moisture to the duster (Figures 4 and 5),
wherein the diffuser is disposed at the bottom of the module housing, and disposed outward in a radial direction of the rotational cleaning part (best shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 2] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) extends in a circumferential direction (shown in Figure 5) of the rotational cleaning part (rotating part 700).
Regarding Claim 3, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 3] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 2, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) extends along a virtual circle, and
a center of the circle is disposed on a rotational axis (axis of rotation shaft 531) of the rotational cleaning part (rotating part 700)(shown in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 7] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein assuming a virtual reference line passing through the module housing (housing 10),
a plurality of the rotational cleaning parts (rotating part 700) are disposed symmetrically with respect to the reference line (shown in Figures 2 and 4), and
the diffusers (nozzle 210) are disposed symmetrically with respect to the reference line (shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 10] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) is disposed above the duster (cleaning member 750) to discharge the heated moisture to an upper surface of the duster (shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 11] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the module housing (housing 10) includes a suction port (suction pipe 53) disposed at one side thereof to suction air, and
the diffuser (nozzle 210) is disposed behind the suction port (with the extension pipe 50 identified as the front of the suction port).
Regarding Claim 12, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 12] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the module housing (housing 10) includes a diffuser installation groove (hole that allows the nozzle 210 to project through bottommost wall as shown in Figure 4) which is formed to be recessed upward from a lower surface, and into which at least a portion of the diffuser is inserted (shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 13] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein a lower end of the diffuser (nozzle 210) is disposed to be spaced apart (shown in Figure 4) from an upper surface of the duster (cleaning member 750).
Regarding Claim 14, Kwak et al. anticipates:
[Claim 14] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein an inner end of the diffuser (nozzle 210) is disposed to be spaced apart (shown in Figure 4) from an outer end of the rotational cleaning part (rotating part 700).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. WO 2021/101036 A1 (hereafter Kwak et al.) in view of Ying CN 114869188 A (hereafter Ying).
Regarding Claim 4, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 4] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 2, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) is formed in an arc shape (see discussion below).
Kwak et al. discloses a single location nozzle 210 located above the rotating cleaning member 750. Kwak et al. does not disclose that the diffuser is formed in an arc shape. The reference Ying discloses a disk-shaped diffuser portion 211 shown in Figures 7 and 8 which combines the steam supply and directs it to dispense steam in two annular patterns. Since Kwak et al. discloses two rotating cleaning members, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kwak et al. device to employ a disk-shaped diffuser, therefore arc shaped as shown in Ying Figures 7 and 8, concentric with each rotating cleaning member with the motivation to dispense the steam more uniformly during operation.
Regarding Claim 5, the combined Kwak et al. in view of Ying device teaches:
[Claim 5] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 4, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) is disposed inside the rotational axis of the duster (cleaning member 750)(assumed to be within the circumferential boundary of the cleaning member 750 consistent with Applicant’s Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 6, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 6] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 2, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) is formed in a ring shape (see discussion below).
Kwak et al. discloses a single location nozzle 210 located above the rotating cleaning member 750. Kwak et al. does not disclose that the diffuser is formed in a ring shape. The reference Ying discloses a disk-shaped diffuser portion 211 shown in Figures 7 and 8 which combines the steam supply and directs it to dispense steam in two annular patterns. Since Kwak et al. discloses two rotating cleaning members, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kwak et al. device to employ a disk-shaped diffuser, therefore ring shaped as shown in Ying Figures 7 and 8, concentric with each rotating cleaning member with the motivation to dispense the steam more uniformly during operation.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. WO 2021/101036 A1 (hereafter Kwak et al.) in view of Xia et al. US 2021/0045606 (hereafter Xia et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 8] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) further includes a drain hole through which condensed condensate is discharged (see discussion below).
Kwak et al. discloses a water tank 100 that includes a discharge port 105 that appears, based on Figure 7, to allow heated water to release into the housing 10. It would have been obvious thermodynamics to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the steam will cool within the housing causing it to condense. Therefore, collection of condensed water inside the housing would be an obviously realistic scenario. The reference Xia et al. discloses in Paragraph [0075] a drain hole in the foot assembly 500 that allows water within the housing to be discharged from inside the enclosure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kwak et al. device to include a drain hole, as taught by Xia et al. located to drain the fluid out of the enclosure with the motivation to prevent significant water collection inside the enclosure that may compromise the electrical components.
Regarding Claim 9, the Kwak et al. in view of Xia et al. device teaches:
[Claim 9] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 8, wherein the diffuser (nozzle 210) includes a diffuser nozzle configured to discharge the heated moisture toward the duster (cleaning member 750), and
a distance from the rotational axis of the rotational cleaning part (rotating part 700) to the diffuser nozzle is greater than a distance from the rotational axis of the rotational cleaning part to the drain hole (see discussion below).
As presented in Claim 8, it would have been obvious to modify the Kwak et al. device in view of Xia et al. to include a drain hole to prevent fluid build-up inside the enclosure. That being said, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the location of the drain is not critical yet should be placed in a location within the housing that would allow the liquid to naturally drain and be dispensed into a location that is not problematic. Based on the design of Kwak et al., it would have been obvious to locate the drain hole above the rotating cleaning pad allowing it to be absorbed onto the pad rather than just spilling onto the floor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the drain hole as close as possible to the rotational axis of the cleaning member with the motivation to reduce the angular velocity at the drain location to reduce the chance of the water being slung off the cleaning member during rotation.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. WO 2021/101036 A1 (hereafter Kwak et al.) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 15, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 15] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the module housing (housing 10) includes a partition wall (bottommost wall that forms the bottom of the water tank 100 – see discussion below) configured to partition a duster driving motor (motor 500) configured to rotate the rotational cleaning part (rotating part 700) and the heat generator (heating member 330), and the diffuser (nozzle 210) is disposed closer to the heat generator than the duster driving motor with respect to the partition wall (shown in Figure 4).
Kwak et al. discloses a water tank 100 mounted inside housing 10 as shown in Figure 4. Kwak et al. does not disclose any essential structural walls inside the housing 10 that would connect the water tank in the disclosed location. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cavity of the water tank with a combination of at least one partition wall extending from the housing with the motivation to separate the water holding space from the electrical component space which is consistent with Kwak et al. Figure 4.
Regarding Claim 16, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 16] A wet duster module of a cleaner (vacuum cleaner with cleaner head body shown in Figures 2-7), which mops and cleans a foreign substance on a floor, the wet duster module comprising:
a module housing (housing 10) coupled to a cleaner main body (cleaner body 1), forming an appearance (Figures 2 and 3), and forming an internal space (cavity of water tank 100) therein (best shown in Figure 4);
a partition wall (bottommost wall that forms the bottom of the water tank 100) extending from one side of the module housing (obviously secured to housing to allow for mounting as shown in Figure 4 – see discussion below) to the internal space and partitioning the internal space into a first internal space (space inside water tank 100) and a second internal space (space within housing 10 that surrounds water tank 100 shown in Figure 4) surrounding the first internal space (shown in Figure 4);
a water tank (cavity of water tank 100 below fill water level L) coupled to the module housing and storing water therein (Figure 4);
a duster (cleaning member 750) disposed on a lower surface of the module housing (Figure 3);
a heat generator (heating member 330) disposed in the first internal space and heating water supplied from the water tank (Figure 4); and
a diffuser (nozzle 210) disposed in the first internal space and connected to the heat generator to supply the heated moisture to the duster (best shown in Figure 4).
Kwak et al. discloses a water tank 100 mounted inside housing 10 as shown in Figure 4. Kwak et al. does not disclose any essential structural walls inside the housing 10 that would connect the water tank in the disclosed location. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cavity of the water tank with a combination of at least one partition wall extending from the housing with the motivation to separate the water holding space from the electrical component space which is consistent with Kwak et al. Figure 4.
Regarding Claim 17, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 17] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 16, wherein the duster (cleaning member 750) rotates about a rotational axis (axis of rotation shaft 531), and
the rotational axis is disposed in the second internal space (space within housing 10 that surrounds water tank 100 shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 18] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 16, further comprising a duster driving motor (motor 500) disposed in the second internal space (space within housing 10 that surrounds water tank 100 shown in Figure 4) and rotating the duster (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Kwak et al. teaches:
[Claim 19] The wet duster module of the cleaner of claim 16, further comprising a water pump (see discussion below) disposed in the second internal space (space within housing 10 that surrounds water tank 100 shown in Figure 4) and pumping the water stored in the water tank (water tank 100) to the heat generator (heating member 330).
Kwak et al. discloses a water tank 100 with hoses 200 inserted deeper into the inner space of the water tank 100 to supply water. Kwak et al. does not disclose that the flow path of the hoses include a water pump. As shown in Figure 4, the water would need to be able to move vertically upward against gravity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that physics would prevent this from occurring without pressurizing the water tank 100 or a water pump that creates a suction inside the hose that would draw the water upward against gravity. Kwak et al. discloses outlet 105 and suction port 103 that would prevent pressurizing the water tank to a sufficient pressure to draw water upward. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kwak et al. device to include a water pump, as claimed, with the motivation to provide the disclosed supply of water from the water tank 100.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of floor cleaners with diffusers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights