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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 6 of copending Application No. 18293224 in view of Roh (CN 104068799 A).
Claims 1, 3 and 6 of copending application disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 5-8 except for
(Re. claim 1) a water pump configured to supply water stored in the water tank to the heating generator, wherein an amount of water accommodated by the heating generator is equal to an amount of water that the water pump supplies to the heating generator
(Re. claim 5) a sealer disposed at an upper side of the heating chamber and configured to seal the upper side of the heating chamber; and an upper cover disposed at an upper side of the sealer and configured to cover the sealer.
However, Roh teaches a water pump 134 configured to supply water stored in the water tank to the heating generator, wherein an amount of water accommodated by the heating generator is equal to an amount of water that the water pump supplies to the heating generator (water supplied to heating generator is only supplied by water pump).
Regarding claim 5, a sealer 139 disposed at an upper side of the heating chamber and configured to seal the upper side of the heating chamber; and an upper cover 138 disposed at an upper side of the sealer and configured to cover the sealer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the claims of the copending application to have
(Re. claim 1) a water pump configured to supply water stored in the water tank to the heating generator, wherein an amount of water accommodated by the heating generator is equal to an amount of water that the water pump supplies to the heating generator
(Re. claim 5) a sealer disposed at an upper side of the heating chamber and configured to seal the upper side of the heating chamber; and an upper cover disposed at an upper side of the sealer and configured to cover the sealer,
as taught by Roh, for the purpose of providing means to supply water to the heater for the purpose of heating the water and to prevent excape of the water/moisture from the chamber.
Claims 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 6 of copending Application No. 18293224 in view of Roh (CN 104068799 A) and further in view of McGee et al (US 20140150201 A1).
Claims 1, 3 and 6 of copending application in view of Roh set forth the limitations of claims 9 and 10 except for the water pump is operated for a preset water supply time, and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time.
However, McGee teaches the water pump is operated for a preset water supply time (paragraph 0043: “predetermined time” of “timer”), and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time (pump continues to operate at selected pump rate until predetermined time is reached which must result in the water supply as claimed), and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time (pump continues to operate at selected pump rate until predetermined time is reached which must result in the water supply through the heating generator as claimed; note that the claim does not require the heating generator to accommodate the claimed amount of water all at once).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time filing, to modify the copending application claims in view of Roh by having the water pump operated for a preset water supply time, and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time, as taught by McGee, for the purpose of preventing the device from operating for longer than desired.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 18873506 in view of Roh (CN 104068799 A).
Claims 1 of copending application disclose the limitations of claims 1 except for a water pump configured to supply water stored in the water tank to the heating generator, wherein an amount of water accommodated by the heating generator is equal to an amount of water that the water pump supplies to the heating generator
However, Roh teaches a water pump 134 configured to supply water stored in the water tank to the heating generator, wherein an amount of water accommodated by the heating generator is equal to an amount of water that the water pump supplies to the heating generator (water supplied to heating generator is only supplied by water pump).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the claims of the copending application to have a water pump configured to supply water stored in the water tank to the heating generator, wherein an amount of water accommodated by the heating generator is equal to an amount of water that the water pump supplies to the heating generator
as taught by Roh, for the purpose of providing means to supply water to the heater for the purpose of heating the water.
Claims 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 18873506 in view of Roh (CN 104068799 A) and further in view of McGee et al (US 20140150201 A1).
Claims 1 of copending application in view of Roh set forth the limitations of claims 9 and 10 except for the water pump is operated for a preset water supply time, and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time.
However, McGee teaches the water pump is operated for a preset water supply time (paragraph 0043: “predetermined time” of “timer”), and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time (pump continues to operate at selected pump rate until predetermined time is reached which must result in the water supply as claimed), and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time (pump continues to operate at selected pump rate until predetermined time is reached which must result in the water supply through the heating generator as claimed; note that the claim does not require the heating generator to accommodate the claimed amount of water all at once).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time filing, to modify the copending application claims in view of Roh by having the water pump operated for a preset water supply time, and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time, as taught by McGee, for the purpose of preventing the device from operating for longer than desired.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites “the moisture discharge port”. However, claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a pair of moisture discharge ports”. It is unclear if “the moisture discharge port” is referring to only one of the pair of discharge ports for both. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted to read “the pair of moisture discharge ports”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roh (CN 104068799 A).
Regarding claim 1, Roh discloses a wet mop rag module for a cleaner configured to clean by wiping debris on a floor surface, comprising:
a module housing (outer housing shown in figure 1);
a water tank 132 coupled to the module housing and configured to store water inside; at least one or more rotary cleaning units 122a/122b disposed at a lower side of the module housing and to which a mop rag is couplable (of a structure that would allow a mop rag to couple thereto);
a heating generator 130 configured to heat water provided from the water tank; and
a water pump 134 configured to supply water stored in the water tank to the heating generator, wherein an amount of water accommodated by the heating generator is equal to an amount of water that the water pump supplies to the heating generator (water supplied to heating generator is only supplied by water pump).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the heating generator 130 (figure 6) comprises: a heating chamber (grooves 136a/b of heating block 136) having a flow path (figure 6) in which moisture flows; a heater 137 in contact with the heating chamber and configured to supply heat to the heating chamber; a lower cover (bottom of 136) disposed at a lower side of the heater and configured to cover the heater (see figure 8); a sealer 139 disposed at an upper side of the heating chamber and configured to seal the upper side of the heating chamber; and an upper cover 138 disposed at an upper side of the sealer and configured to cover the sealer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (CN 104068799 A) and in view of KR 20090007510 U (hereinafter KR-510).
Regarding claim 2, Roh discloses the heating generator 130 comprises: a heating chamber 136 in which a flow path through which water flows is formed; a heater 136 configured to supply heat to the heating chamber; a water inlet port 135a formed in the heating chamber and into which water being introduced from the water tank; and a moisture discharge port 135b (figures 6 and 9) formed in the heating chamber and through which heated moisture being discharged.
Regarding claim 3, the flow path communicates the water inlet port and the pair of moisture discharge ports to each other.
Regarding claim 4, in the heating chamber, a height of the water inlet port and a height of the moisture discharge port are formed to be equal.
Roh is silent as to
(Re. claim 2) the heating generator having a pair of moisture discharge ports;
(Re. claim 3) the flow path is formed symmetrically with respect to the water inlet port.
However, KR-510 teaches a heating generator for generating steam wherein
(Re. claim 2) the heating generator having a pair of moisture discharge ports 150 (figure 4);
(Re. claim 3) the flow path is formed symmetrically with respect to the water inlet port (with respect to a sidewall of the water inlet port as seen in annotated figure below).
Furthermore, rearrangement of the inlet port such that the flow path is formed symmetrically with respect to the central axis of the water inlet port would have been an obvious design choice wherein the device made obvious by the prior art would work equally and no inherent or disclosed advantage to such a placement is present.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Roh by having
(Re. claim 2) the heating generator having a pair of moisture discharge ports;
(Re. claim 3) the flow path is formed symmetrically with respect to the water inlet port,
as taught by KR-510, for the purpose of providing dispersed discharge of moisture/steam heated equally.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh and in view of Cho (KR 20080022964 A).
Regarding claim 6, Roh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Roh is silent regarding the heating generator comprising an insulation member disposed between the heater and the lower cover.
However, Cho teaches a heating generator comprising an insulation member disposed between a heater and a lower cover (claims: an insulation material is filled between the heating element and the metallic protection pipe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Roh by providing the heating generator with an insulation member disposed between the heater and the lower cover, as taught by CHO
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh and in view of Morgan (US 20130125940 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Rog discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Roh is silent regarding the heating generator comprising a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of the heating chamber. However, Morgan teaches a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of a heating chamber (paragraph 0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Roh by providing the heating generator with a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of the heating chamber, as taught by Morgan for the purpose of preventing the heat from reaching a maximum temperature.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh, in view of Morgan (US 20130125940 A1) and further in view of McGee et al (US 20140150201 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Roh/Morgan discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8. Roh/Morgan is silent regarding the water pump is operated for a preset water supply time, and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time.
However, McGee teaches the water pump is operated for a preset water supply time (paragraph 0043: “predetermined time” of “timer”), and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time (pump continues to operate at selected pump rate until predetermined time is reached which must result in the water supply as claimed), and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time (pump continues to operate at selected pump rate until predetermined time is reached which must result in the water supply through the heating generator as claimed; note that the claim does not require the heating generator to accommodate the claimed amount of water all at once).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time filing, to modify Roh/Morgan by having the water pump operated for a preset water supply time, and wherein an amount of water that the water pump supplies during the water supply time is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time and wherein an amount of water that the heating generator accommodates is equal to a product of the water supply time and an amount of moisture discharged to the mop rag per unit time, as taught by McGee, for the purpose of preventing the device from operating for longer than desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at (571) 272-7839. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights