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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 9/15/2025.
The Examiner notes claims 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 1, 5-6, 13-15, & 23-24 is/are currently amended; all other claims are original or previously presented.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details..
Claim Objections
Claims 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10: The claim status indicates that the claim is currently amended but it does not appear to have any amendments.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 5, & 13
The claim states "and one of the first distal end or first proximal end of the base member having the at least one teeth member extends along a first plane parallel to the base member at the one of the first distal end or the first proximal end." It is unclear what extends at a first plane. Is it the teeth member that would be extending along a first plane parallel to the base member or the base member distal or proximal end extends parallel to the base member? If the teeth member extends along a plane parallel to the base member, it is unclear what part of the base member the plane is parallel to. Is it to the plane of the base member top surface or the plane of the base member end surface, see Figure 1 of this action below?
For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as the plane the teeth member can extend along, either the top surface or end surface. Specifically the limitation will be interpreted as “and one of the first distal end or first proximal end of the base member having the at least one teeth member , the teeth member extending along a first plane parallel to the base member at the one of the first distal end or the first proximal end.”
All dependent claims are rejected similarly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, & 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lougheed (GB 2428964) in view of Stroud (US 5966771) further in view of JXMORE (JXMORE Mega (XXL) Size Portable Pet Hair Remover and Carpet Lint Cleaner Pro - Fabric Shaver Fuzz Remover for Couch Curtain - Fur Lint Roller for Pet Hair Removal Carpet Rake, Amazon.com), hereinafter Lougheed, Stroud, & Jxmore respectively.
Regarding claim 1, 5, 13, & 15 (Claim statuses are listed above in the Status of Claims section). Lougheed discloses cleaning device [Fig 1-2] comprising:
a base member [1] comprising a width having a first distal end and a first proximal end [Fig 1-4; 1 has a width with two ends forming the distal and proximal respectively];…;
an extension member [Fig 1-2 & 4; the portion of 3 to receive a pole is the extension member] extending from the second distal end of the support member…[Fig 1-2 & 4]; and
at least one teeth member [6a] comprising a contact surface [Fig 1-2 & 4; the toothed side of 6a is the contact surface] …and the contact surface adapted to come in contact with a cleaning surface to dislodge and collect debris [Fig 1-4; Page1:¶6 – Page2:¶1; 6a can sink into the carpet to clean the carpet (i.e. contact a cleaning surface to dislodge and collect debris)];
…coupled with the base member proximate one of the first distal end and the first proximal end [Fig 1-4; Page5:¶2; 6 with 6a can be attached to either side of 1 or both sides of 1]; and
wherein the extension member extends along a first axis parallel to the length of the extension member, and one of the first distal end or first proximal end of the base member having the at least one teeth member, the teeth member extending along a first plane parallel to the base member at the one of the first distal end or the first proximal end, wherein the first axis and the first plane are at an angle greater than or equal to ninety degrees [Figure 1 of this action; Page4:¶2; the figure below shows one angle between the extension member axis and one potential plane of the base member that is 90 degrees or more; additionally the cited portion of Lougheed states that the angle between the axis of the extension member and the top surface of the base member can be any angle as required by the user and not just 45 degrees as is what appears in the figures, therefore the angle between the extension member axis and top surface of the base member can be 90 degrees or more].
PNG
media_image1.png
451
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Lougheed is silent in regards to a support member comprising a width having a second distal end and a second proximal end, the support member being positioned at an upwardly extending angle with respect to the base member; or an extension member extending from the second distal end of the support member at substantially the same upwardly extending angle as the second distal end of the support member with respect to the base member; or at least one teeth member comprising a contact surface and an attachment surface, the attachment surface operably coupled to the base member or wherein the attachment surface is formed with an inner channel, the inner channel coupled with the base member proximate one of the first distal end and the first proximal end.
However Stroud teaches a teeth member with a base member [12], support member [Col3:line26-30; the “transvers webs” are the support member], and extension member [18]; wherein the support member comprising a width having a second distal end and a second proximal end [Fig 1-6; the support member has a width with two ends forming the distal and proximal; the proximal end is in contact with 12], the support member being positioned at an upwardly extending angle with respect to the base member [Fig 5-6]; the extension member extending from the second distal end of the support member at substantially the same upwardly extending angle as the second distal end of the support member with respect to the base member [Fig 5-6; the transverse webs and 18 are extending from 12 at the same angle].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extension member as disclosed by Lougheed to have a support member comprising a width having a second distal end and a second proximal end, the support member being positioned at an upwardly extending angle with respect to the base member; and the extension member extending from the second distal end of the support member at substantially the same upwardly extending angle as the second distal end of the support member with respect to the base member as taught by Stroud for the purpose of reinforcing the extension member to prevent it from breaking apart from the base member [Stroud: Col3:line26-30].
However Jxmore teaches a carpet hair and lint remover with two removable teeth members [Figure 2 of this action; the base member has two teeth members (i.e. at least one teeth member) attached to both ends] comprising a contact surface [Figure 2 of this action; each side of the teeth members that is opposite the base member in between the two teeth members is the contact surface] and an attachment surface [Figure 2 of this action; the surface of each teeth member in contact with the base the attachment surface], the attachment surface operably coupled to the base member [Figure 2 of this action]; wherein that the attachment surface formed with an inner channel [Figure 2 of this office action; the copper blades have an inner channel to fit over the steel frame], the inner channel coupled with the base member proximate one of the first distal end and the first proximal end [Figure 2 of this office action; the inner channel can be connected to either side of the steel frame (i.e. base member)].
PNG
media_image2.png
837
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teeth member as disclosed by Lougheed to have an attachment surface, the attachment surface operably coupled to the base member and wherein the attachment surface is formed with an inner channel, the inner channel coupled with the base member proximate one of the first distal end and the first proximal end as disclosed by Jxmore for the purpose of having removable teeth members. This modification is an alternative method of attachment for 6 of Lougheed as taught in Page5:¶2 which allows for easily removable and replaceable teeth members.
It is noted that claim 15 contains the same or similar limitations that are in claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein the contact surface includes outer flanges [Figure 3 of this action].
PNG
media_image3.png
542
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3
Regarding claim 3, 9, & 17. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 2, wherein the outer flanges include a pair of outer flange extensions with an outer channel formed therebetween [Figure 3 of this action].
Regarding claim 6 & 14. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one teeth member comprises two teeth members, a first teeth member coupled to the base member first distal end and a second teeth member coupled to the base member first proximal end [Lougheed: Fig 1-4; Page5:¶2; more than one toothed blades (i.e. 6) can be attached to 1; there for if there is there are two, each side of 1 can have a 6 attached; further 9 is also a teeth member by the claimed limitations as teeth or a toothed section is not claimed].
Regarding claim 7. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 5, wherein the attachment surface is formed with an inner channel [Figure 2 of this action; the attachment surface has a channel that is configured to be placed over the base member], the inner channel coupled with the base member proximate one of the first distal end and the first proximal end [Figure 2 of this action], and the contact surface includes outer flanges with an outer channel formed therein, the outer channel positioned opposite the inner channel [Figure 3 of this action].
Regarding claim 8 & 16. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 7, wherein the attachment surface includes a pair of inner flange extensions and the inner channel is formed therebetween [Figure 2-3 of this action; the attachment surface also has a similar structure to the contact surface as inner flange extensions that form an inner channel that extends over the base member when the attachment surface is coupled to the base member].
Regarding claim 11. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 5, wherein the second proximal end of the support member is integrally formed with the first proximal end of the base member [Lougheed: Fig 1-2 & 4].
Regarding claim 22-24. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein the base member includes a cutout having a smaller cross sectional area than remaining portions of the base member [Lougheed: Fig 3; the cutout is the location where the fasteners (8) are placed; the cross sectional area of the base member is smaller there than the areas of the base member without the cutout], wherein the attachment surface of the cleaning member engages the cutout [Figure 2-3 of this action & Fig 3 of Lougheed; the teeth members of Jxmore indirectly engage the base member (1) of Lougheed through 6 & 8 of Lougheed].
Claim(s) 4, 12, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lougheed in view of Stroud further in view of Jxmore further in view of Tyroler (US D923895), hereinafter Tyroler.
Regarding claim 4, 12, & 20. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 1, but is silent in regards to further comprising at least one support flange coupling the base member and the support member.
However Tyroler teaches a cleaning device comprising at least one support flange coupling the base member and the support member [Figure 4 of this action & Fig 6; the base member and support member have a plurality of support flanges coupling them].
PNG
media_image4.png
395
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base member and support member as taught by Lougheed as modified to have at least one support flange coupling the base member and the support member as taught by Tyroler for the purpose adding supporting structure to the connection between the base member and the support member to reduce the material stress on the connection during use which prolongs the life cycle of the cleaning device by reducing crack propagation at the connection.
Regarding claim 19. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 13, but is silent in regards to wherein the second proximal end of the support member is integrally formed with the first proximal end of the base member.
However Tyroler teaches wherein the second proximal end of the support member is integrally formed with the first proximal end of the base member [Tyroler: Figure 4 of this action & Fig 6; the second proximal end of the support member is integrally formed with the first proximal end of the base member].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support member as taught by Lougheed as modified to be integrally formed with the base member as taught by Tyroler for the purpose of reducing the number of parts to manufacture and assemble.
Claim(s) 10 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lougheed in view of Stroud further in view of Jxmore further in view of Martin (US D622467), hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 10, 18, & 21. Lougheed as modified teaches the cleaning device according to claim 5, is silent in regards to wherein the first proximal end of the base member is at an angle between 48 and 78 degrees relative to the first distal end of the base member.
However Martin teaches a hair removal tool with a first proximal end of the base member [Fig 6;
the end of the plate with toothed edge is the first proximal end of the base member] being at an angle relative to the first distal end of the base member [Fig 6; the end of the base member (plate) without teeth is the first distal end and first proximal end is at an angle relative to the first distal end].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first proximal end of the base member as taught by Lougheed as modified to be at an angle relative to the first distal end of the base member as taught by Martin. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to make this modification since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(A). With the predictable results being changing the angle of the outer flanges in relation to the cleaning surface without changing the angle of the extension member to the base member for the purpose of making the angle at which a user is holding the cleaning device during use more ergonomic to reduce the strain on the user.
While neither Lougheed as modified or Martin disclose that the relative angle is between 48 and 78 degrees, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the relative angle of the first proximal end to the first distal end of the base member as taught by Lougheed as modified (including the modifications of Martin) to be between 48 and 78 degrees since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the device of Lougheed as modified would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the angle is intended to allow the teeth member to be angularly adjustable to the cleaning surface the device would function appropriately have the claimed angle.
Response to Amendments
Claim Objections
Applicant's amendments, filed 9/15/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 6/17/2025 has been withdrawn. New objections have been made due to the amendments.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection
Applicant's amendments, see Pages 11, filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 6/17/2025 are withdrawn. New 112 rejections have been made due to the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 11-14, filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that Lougheed is required to have the teeth drawn toward the user and that teeth can only be on the side that shows a 45 degree angle and therefore does not show an angle between the extension member axis and the plane of the distal or proximal end with the teeth member that is .However as shown above in the rejection Lougheed does disclose this limitation. See above for more details. Specifically in Page4:¶2 of Lougheed the angle between the extension member and the base member can be either a different angle (e.g. 90 degrees) or an adjustable joint that can have a variety of angles (i.e. gimbal).
Regarding the secondary consideration, it does not meet the requirements to be given patentable weight at shown below.
Secondary Consideration
Applicant’s submission of additional evidence in the form of a Declaration, see Pages 12-14, filed 5/14/2025 does not meet the requirements of MPEP 716 Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections [R-07.2022]. The Applicant’s declaration does not create a nexus between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention as is does not point to any specific limitations of the claims and how they are nonobvious (MPEP 716.01(b)). There is no objective evidence that factually supports the claims have probative value including evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor (MPEP 716.01(c)-I). The Applicant claims commercial success but does not show any factually statistics of sales and how some part of the claimed invention has led directly to an increase in sale (i.e. commercial success). Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST].
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 i 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723