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 .
Priority
The claims of the instant application have two different priority dates due to the addition of disclosure in the filed drawings and specifications. Figures 8-13 were not previously presented in the provisional applications or the certified foreign copy of the PCT filing. The current specifications have also been modified and are not present in the provisional applications or the PCT filing.
In Summary:
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-12, 16, 18, 19, and 29-30 are drawn towards new disclosure in the figures and/or specifications and have an effective filing date of 06 November, 2024.
Claims 1, 5-6, 13-15, 21, 23, and 27 are drawn towards previously presented disclosure in the provisional applications or the certified foreign copy of the PCT filing and have an effective filing date of 06 May, 2022
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 23 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.
The term “an ideal plane” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an ideal plane” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner what an “ideal” plane pertains to and what entails an “ideal” plane. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a plane”.
Claim 9 recites “ the power supply presents at least a portion of flattened and axial-symmetric conformation”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the power supply is intended for a cross sectional axial symmetric conformation or axial symmetric conformation in relation to a specific axis. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the power supply has a cross sectional axial symmetric. If applicant intended for the claim to recite a circular power supply that is surrounding a specific axis such a limitation is not required by the current claim limitations.
Claim 23 recites “a delivery channel, optionally a water delivery channel…” it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the delivery channel to be a water delivery channel or another element. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as a delivery channel that is capable of optionally delivering water.
Claim 23 recites “a tank, optionally a water tank…” it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the tank to be a water tank or another element. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as a tank that is capable of optionally holding water.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 is currently dependent upon canceled claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as dependent upon claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, 21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunnstrom (2014/0116743).
Regarding Claim 1, Brunnstrom teaches A floor treatment machine (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a top part with a handle for a user to maneuver the floor treatment machine ([0018] describes "…the drawings is normally arranged and adapted to be surrounded by a not shown frame with wheels and handle, and by means of which the operator drives said cleaning machine 1 on the floor 2 or another surface…"); and
a bottom part (Fig. 1), connected with the top part ([0018]), wherein the bottom part includes:
a direct drive motor (Ref. 4, Fig. 1, [0020]) having a rotor (Ref. 15, Fig. 1, [0020] describes "…Further, the rotor 15 of the motor 4 is drivably connected to said rotatably driven floor treating brush and/or disc 7…") and a stator (Ref. 17, Fig. 1, "…while the stator 17 of the motor 4 is connected to the stationary frame 18 of the cleaning machine 1…"), the rotor being configured to turn around an axis of rotation (See annotated Fig. 1 below, [0020] describes "…machine comprises a floor treating brush and/or cleaning disc 7 rotatably driven by a horizontally arranged, electrically driven hub motor 4…");
a power supply (Ref. 23, Fig. 6, [0022]) configured for supplying an electric power to the direct drive motor ([0022] describes "… the electric cables 23 of the motor, and is connected to said stator 17 of the motor, which exhibits the windings of the motor…");
a treatment tool (Ref. 7, Fig. 1, [0020]) with a lower side (See annotated Fig. 1 below) destined to face a floor (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) to be cleaned ([0020], Fig. 1) and an upper side (See annotated Fig. 1 below) opposite to the lower side (Fig. 1), wherein the rotor is in direct drive connection with the treatment tool so that the treatment tool is adapted to rotate together with the rotor around said axis of rotation ([0020] describes "…Further, the rotor 15 of the motor 4 is drivably connected to said rotatably driven floor treating brush and/or disc 7…"),
wherein the direct drive motor (4) is positioned above the treatment tool upper side (Fig. 1) and presents a radial size (Ref. B, Fig. 1, [0020] describes "…the motor 4 is built-in in said cleaning machine 1 it exhibits a substantially larger extension laterally, i.e. in breadth B, than in height H, i.e. horizontally and vertically…"), measured perpendicular to said axis of rotation (Fig. 1), and an axial size (Ref. H, Fig. 1, [0020]), measured parallel to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1), the radial size being greater than the axial size (Fig. 1, [0020] describes "…the motor 4 is built-in in said cleaning machine 1 it exhibits a substantially larger extension laterally, i.e. in breadth B, than in height H, i.e. horizontally and vertically…").
PNG
media_image1.png
536
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the axial size of direct drive motor is at least 2 times smaller than a maximum radial size of the direct drive motor ([0020] describes "…The ratio between breadth and height of the motor may be about 8:1.").
Regarding Claim 3, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein both the treatment tool and the direct drive motor present a discoidal conformation (Fig. 1-2 show a discoidal conformation) and are coaxially stacked one above the other (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 8, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the power supply is positioned such that a bottom side of the power supply (23) is vertically aligned or below an ideal plane tangential to a lower surface of the direct drive motor (Fig. 6 annotated below, shows the power supply (23) is vertically aligned with an ideal plane tangential to a lower surface).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the power supply (23), is positioned above the direct drive motor (Fig. 6), and wherein the power supply presents at least a portion of flattened and axial-symmetric conformation (Fig. 6, examiner notes, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b), the power supply (23) is axial-symmetric as a power chord has a circular cross section), which is coaxially positioned relative to the direct drive motor (Fig. 6 shows the power supply (23) has a vertical portion that is coaxially positioned above and along the direct drive motor to ).
Regarding Claim 11, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the power supply (23), is positioned above the direct drive motor (Fig. 6), and wherein the power supply presents at least a portion of flattened and axial-symmetric conformation (Fig. 6 shows the vertical portion of the power supply is axially symmetric), which is coaxially positioned relative to the direct drive motor (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the power supply (23), treatment tool (7) and the direct drive motor (4) are coaxially stacked the one above the other (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 21, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a housing (Ref. 26, Fig. 1-4) at least partially covering the bottom part of the floor treatment machine (Fig. 1-4), wherein the housing extends above the direct drive motor (Fig. 1&4) and has a peripheral edge (See annotated fig. 1 below) extending around at least a portion of the direct drive motor (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
476
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein a shaft (Ref. 37&19, Fig. 8) extending through a central axial gap of the direct drive motor (Fig. 1&8) mechanically connects the treatment tool (7) with the rotor (15) of the direct drive motor (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of deBlois (6,248,007).
Regarding Claim 5, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the power supply is positioned radially external with respect to a radial periphery of the direct drive motor. deBlois teaches a floor treatment device with a power source and brushless motor and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. deBlois teaches a floor treatment device (Fig. 5A-B) with a motor (Ref. 18, Fig. 2) that is powered by a power supply (Ref. 16&60, Fig. 2 the power supply is made up of wires and a removable battery) is positioned radially external with respect to a radial periphery of the direct drive motor (Fig. 2). Given that Brunnstrom teaches a power supply that is provided by wires, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply, as taught by Brunnstrom, with a power supply having wires and a removable battery positioned radially external with respect to a radial periphery of the direct drive motor, as taught by deBlois, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of powering a motor for a floor cleaning device and allow for easy removal and replacement of the battery.
Regarding Claim 19, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the power supply comprises a battery extractable from said bottom part of the floor treatment machine. deBlois teaches a floor treatment device (Fig. 5A-B) with a motor (Ref. 18, Fig. 2) that is powered by a power supply (Ref. 16&60, Fig. 2 the power supply is made up of wires and a removable battery) comprises a battery extractable from a bottom part of the floor treatment machine (Ref. 14, Fig. 3A). Given that Brunnstrom teaches a power supply that is provided by wires, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply, as taught by Brunnstrom, with a power supply having wires and a battery removable from said bottom part of the floor treatment device, as taught by deBlois, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of powering a motor for a floor cleaning device and allow for easy removal and replacement of the battery.
Claims 13-15 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Helbig (2,967,315).
Regarding Claim 13, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a counterweight positioned at a front end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine. Helbig teaches a floor treatment machine with a treatment tool and motor and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Helbig further teaches a floor treatment machine (Fig. 1) comprising a bottom part (Fig. 2-4) and a counterweight (Ref. 35, Fig. 3-4) positioned at a front end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bottom part of the floor treatment machine, as taught by Brunnstrom, with a counterweight on the front, as taught by Helbig, to effectively balance out the reactive force that occurs upon engagement of the head with the surface to polished during operation ([Col. 1, Lines 53-56]).
Regarding Claim 14, Brunnstrom as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and given the teaching of a forward counterweight, as taught by Helbig, Helbig further teaches wherein the counterweight (35) is positioned radially external with respect to a radial periphery of the direct drive motor (Ref. 19, Fig. 2, Helbig shows the outer edge of the counterweight (35) is positioned radially external from the direct drive motor).
Regarding Claim 15, Brunnstrom as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and given the teaching of a forward counterweight, as taught by Helbig, Helbig further teaches wherein the counterweight is positioned (35, Fig. 3, Helbig), with respect to the direct drive motor (Ref. 19, Fig. 2-4, Helbig), in a location which is radially opposite to the power supply (Ref. 16, Fig. 1, Helbig).
Regarding Claim 29, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the floor treatment machine (Fig. 1) is configured to be positioned in at least one operative condition (Fig. 1, [0018] describes "… by means of which the operator drives said cleaning machine 1 on the floor 2 or another surface…"), where the treatment tool contacts the floor to be cleaned (Fig. 1, [0018]). Brunnstrom fails to explicitly teach wherein in the operative condition the center of gravity of the floor treatment machine lies on a vertical plane passing through the treatment tool. Helbig teaches a floor treatment machine with a treatment tool and motor and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Helbig further teaches a floor treatment machine (Fig. 1) comprising a bottom part (Fig. 2-4) and wherein in the operative condition the center of gravity of the floor treatment machine lies on a vertical plane passing through the treatment tool ([Col. 2, lines 57-61] describes "… both the counterweight and the polishing head assembly including the disc 30 and the attached head 13 are arranged so that their centers of gravity lie in substantially the same plane normal to the axis of the motor 33; this plane lies within the hollow portion of the head about the pivot end 31…"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the treatment tool, as taught by Bronnstrom, with a center of gravity of the floor treatment machine lies on a vertical plane passing through the treatment tool, as taught by Helbig, to effectively balance out the reactive force that occurs upon engagement of the head with the surface to polished during operation ([Col. 1, Lines 53-56]).
Regarding Claim 30, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the floor treatment machine (Fig. 1) is configured to be positioned in at least one operative condition (Fig. 1, [0018] describes "… by means of which the operator drives said cleaning machine 1 on the floor 2 or another surface…"), where the treatment tool contacts the floor to be cleaned (Fig. 1, [0018]). Brunnstrom fails to explicitly teach wherein in the operative condition the center of gravity of the floor treatment machine lies on a vertical plane passing through a central area of the treatment tool. Helbig teaches a floor treatment machine with a treatment tool and motor and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Helbig further teaches a floor treatment machine (Fig. 1) comprising a bottom part (Fig. 2-4) and wherein in the operative condition the center of gravity of the floor treatment machine lies on a vertical plane passing through a central area of the treatment tool ([Col. 2, Liens 57-61] describes "… both the counterweight and the polishing head assembly including the disc 30 and the attached head 13 are arranged so that their centers of gravity lie in substantially the same plane normal to the axis of the motor 33; this plane lies within the hollow portion of the head about the pivot end 31…"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the treatment tool, as taught by Bronnstrom, with a center of gravity of the floor treatment machine lies on a vertical plane passing through a central area of the treatment tool, as taught by Helbig, to effectively balance out the reactive force that occurs upon engagement of the head with the surface to polished during operation ([Col. 1, Lines 53-56]).
Claims 6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronnstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tucker (4,590,635).
Regarding Claim 6, Bronnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches at least one wheel ([[0018] describes "…normally arranged and adapted to be surrounded by a not shown frame with wheels and handle,…"), wherein the power supply (23) is located adjacent to the rear end of the floor treatment machine, proximate to the direct drive motor (Fig. 6 shows the power source is proximate to the direct drive motor, examiner interprets the term "proximate" as near). Bronnstrom fails to explicitly teach at least one wheel located at a rear end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine. Tucker teaches a floor treatment device with a motor, treatment tool, housing, and wheel and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tucker teaches a floor treatment machine (Fig .1) comprising a bottom part (Fig. 4) with at least one wheel (Ref. 28, Fig. 1) located at a rear end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine ([Col. 3, lines 47-49] describes "…At the rear end of the body 26 are mounted wheels 28…"). Given that Bronnstrom teaches that there is a wheel and housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing and wheels, as taught by Bronnstrom, with the housing and at least one wheel located at a rear end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine, as taught by Tucker, to allow for easy movement of the floor treatment machine and replacement of the worn pads ([Col. 4, Lines 9-10]).
Regarding Claim 16, Bronnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the floor treatment machine (Fig. 1) is configured to be positioned in at least one operative condition (Fig. 1, [0018] describes "… by means of which the operator drives said cleaning machine 1 on the floor 2 or another surface…"), where the treatment tool contacts the floor to be cleaned (Fig. 1, [0018]) but fails to explicitly teach wherein, in said operative condition, the treatment tool is the only component of the floor treatment machine destined to contact the floor to be cleaned; and/or wherein said at least one wheel is vertically raised relative to an ideal plane tangential to a lower surface of the treatment tool, whereby in said operative condition the at least one wheel is destined to not contact the floor to be treated. Tucker teaches a floor treatment device with a motor, treatment tool, housing, and wheel and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tucker teaches a floor treatment machine (Fig .1) comprising a bottom part (Fig. 4) and wherein the floor treatment machine (Fig. 1) is configured to be positioned in at least one operative condition (Fig. 1&2, [Col. 4, Lines 1-3] describes "…Normally, the pad 40 engages the floor…"), where the treatment tool contacts the floor to be cleaned (Fig. 1&2, [Col. 4, Lines 1-3] describes "…Normally, the pad 40 engages the floor…"), and wherein, in said operative condition, the treatment tool is the only component of the floor treatment machine destined to contact the floor to be cleaned (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing and wheels, as taught by Bronnstrom, where the treatment tool is the only component of the floor treatment machine destined to contact the floor to be cleaned, as taught by Tucker, to allow for easy movement of the floor treatment machine and replacement of the worn pads ([Col. 4, Lines 9-10]).
Regarding Claim 18, Bronnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches at least one wheel ([[0018] describes "…normally arranged and adapted to be surrounded by a not shown frame with wheels and handle,…"). Bronnstrom fails to explicitly teach at least one wheel located at a rear end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine wherein the floor treatment machine is configured to be positioned in at least one transport condition, and wherein in the transport condition the at least one wheel is the only component of the floor treatment machine destined to contact the floor to be cleaned, further wherein the floor treatment machine is susceptible of being inclined from the use condition to the transport condition causing at least an angular displacement of the treatment tool from an horizontal position to an inclined position. Tucker teaches a floor treatment device with a motor, treatment tool, housing, and wheel and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tucker teaches at least one wheel (Ref. 28, Fig. 1) located at a rear end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine ([Col. 3, lines 47-49] describes "…At the rear end of the body 26 are mounted wheels 28…"),
wherein the floor treatment machine is configured to be positioned in at least one transport condition ([Col. 4, Lines 3-10] describes "…By moving the body 26 downwardly through the application of a downward force from the handle bar 41, the machine 25 is raised at the forward end thereof and lowered at the rear end thereof… An operator can now move the machine 25 to various locations or can replace worn pads…"), and wherein in the transport condition the at least one wheel is the only component of the floor treatment machine destined to contact the floor to be cleaned ([Col. 4, Lines 3-10] describes "…By moving the body 26 downwardly through the application of a downward force from the handle bar 41, the machine 25 is raised at the forward end thereof and lowered at the rear end thereof. Through this action, the wheels 28 are lowered to the floor and the pad 40 is removed from engagement with the floor…"), further wherein the floor treatment machine is susceptible of being inclined from the use condition to the transport condition causing at least an angular displacement of the treatment tool from an horizontal position to an inclined position (Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 3-10] describes "…By moving the body 26 downwardly through the application of a downward force from the handle bar 41, the machine 25 is raised at the forward end thereof and lowered at the rear end thereof. Through this action, the wheels 28 are lowered to the floor and the pad 40 is removed from engagement with the floor. An operator can now move the machine 25 to various locations or can replace worn pads…"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing and wheels, as taught by Bronnstrom, with the housing and at least one wheel located at a rear end of the bottom part of the floor treatment machine, as taught by Tucker, to allow for easy movement of the floor treatment machine and replacement of the worn pads ([Col. 4, Lines 9-10]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronnstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franke (2015/0113757).
Regarding Claim 23, Brunnstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a delivery channel (Ref. 9, Fig. 1), optionally a water delivery channel, having a first terminal portion (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0023] describes "surrounds the conduit 9 for washing liquid and exhibits a connection 20 for said conduit 9 for washing liquid…") and a second terminal portion (Ref. 28, Fig. 1) configured for delivering fluid ([0024] describes "…Supplied washing liquid 12 reaches the floor 2 from the conduit 9 for washing liquid in the central shaft 19 via a central recess 28 in the cleaning disc 7…"), optionally water, at or in proximity of the treatment tool (Fig. 1).
Brunnstrom fails to explicitly teach a delivery channel having a first terminal portion connected to a tank, optionally to a water tank. Franke teaches a floor treatment device with a motor, treatment tool, housing, a water tank, and wheel and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Franke teaches a floor treatment device (Ref. 1, fig. 1) comprising a delivery channel (Ref. 20, Fig. 5, [0050]), optionally a water delivery channel ([0050] descries “…a fresh water line…”) having a first terminal potion (Ref. 20, upper end that connects to the tank (8), Fig. 5) connected to a tank (Ref. 8, Fig. 5, [0050]), optionally a water tank ([0050] describes “…the fresh water tank….”) and a second terminal portion (Ref. 20, lower end that connects to the base (3)) configured for delivering fluid ([0050]), optionally water, at or in proximity of the treatment tool ([0050] describes “…the fresh water is supplied to the treatment region of the tools 11, is additionally guided to the bottom part 3 as a fresh water supply system…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the delivery channel, as taught by Brunnstrom, to connect to a water tank, as taught by Franke, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of delivering fluid to the treatment tool for cleaning a surface and to allow for holding fluid on the floor treatment device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gutsch (2009/0078485), Stuchlik (9,649,003), Peterson (2007/0094821), and Bevington (4,122,576) teaches a floor treatment machine with a treatment tool, motors, power supply, and top parts with handles and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights