DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 9/24/2024 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britain on 3/25/2022.
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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.
Claims 1, 8-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Tibberts (United States Patent Publication 2017/0311768).
With respect to Claim 1: Tibberts discloses “A hard floor cleaner comprising a sweeper element and a mop element each being mounted for rotation about a respective axis” [Tibberts, ¶ 0002, 0020, 0026 and Figures 2-3];
“wherein the sweeper element and the mop element are arranged such that a lowermost portion of the sweeper element and a lowermost portion of the mop element contact a surface to be cleaned in use” [Tibberts, ¶ 0002, 0020, 0026 and Figures 2-3];
“and wherein the sweeper element is located in front of the mop element with respect to a first direction of travel of the hard floor cleaner in use” [Tibberts, ¶ 0002, 0020, 0022, 0026 and Figures 2-3].
With respect to Claim 8: Tibberts discloses “The hard floor cleaner as claimed in any preceding claim 1, wherein the mop element is substantially cylindrical” [Tibberts, ¶ 0025-0026 and Figures 2-3].
With respect to Claim 9: While Tibberts discloses “The hard floor cleaner as claimed in any preceding claim 1, wherein the mop element comprises a resilient material” [Tibberts, ¶ 0025-0026 and Figures 2-3 (the roller 34)].
With respect to Claim 10: Tibberts discloses “The hard floor cleaner as claimed in any preceding claim 1, comprising a bin for collecting debris swept from the floor in use by the sweeper element” [Tibberts, ¶ 0022 with Figures 1-3].
With respect to Claim 12: Tibberts discloses “The hard floor cleaner as claimed in claim 10, wherein the bin is located between the sweeping element and the mop element” [Tibberts, ¶ 0022 with Figures 1-3].
With respect to Claim 14: Tibberts discloses “The hard floor cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mop element is located between the sweeper element and an additional sweeper element, and wherein the additional sweeper element is located on the opposite side of the mop element to the sweeper element” [Tibberts, ¶ 0002, 0020, 0022, 0026 and Figures 2-3].
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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tibberts (United States Patent Publication 2017/0311768) in view of Kalemba (WO 2005/055795).
With respect to Claims 11 and 13: While Tibberts discloses “The hard floor cleaner as claimed in any preceding claim 1, comprising a container” [Tibberts, ¶ 0022 with Figures 1-3];
Tibberts does not specifically state a container for laying liquid for the mope element and its towelette.
Kalemba, which is also a vacuum and mopping system with containers, teaches “comprising a container for holding liquid collected from the mop element when in use” [Kalemba, Abstract with Figure 4];
“wherein the container is located between the sweeping element or elements and the mop element” [Kalemba, Abstract with Figure 4].
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 teachings of Kalemba into the invention of Tibberts to not only include using towelettes wrapped around a mop element as Tibberts discloses but to also have a chamber to add liquid to the floor to aid in mopping as taught by Kalemba with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kalemba into Tibberts to create a more robust system that add more cleaning liquid when desired or needed by a valve to aid in cleaning. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such a vacuum and mops with moist aids and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights