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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a drive unit to rotate the roll relative to the hub portion in claim 2, and disclosed as an electric motor and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 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 recitation of “the manifold has at least one of the outlet for each of the two rolls” is unclear. The Examiner will interpret the limitation as the manifold has at least one outlet to one of the two rolls.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang US 2022/0218172 A1.
Re claim 1, Liang discloses an apparatus for cleaning a floor surface, the apparatus comprising:
an elongated body 104;
a heater 92 configured for receiving liquid and heating the liquid;
a conduit 103 in fluid flow communication with an outlet of the heater;
a floor tool [8, 102] connected at a proximal end of the elongated body, the floor tool including:
a hub portion 102, at least one roll 8 defining a floor cleaning interface, the roll connected to the hub portion for rotation, the roll defining an inner cavity for receiving steam [fig. 3], the floor cleaning interface of the roll being permeable to steam, and
a delivery outlet 26 in fluid flow communication with the conduit 103 to receive steam or vapour therefrom, the delivery outlet in fluid flow communication with the inner cavity of the roll.
Re claim 2, wherein the floor tool further includes a drive unit 10 drivingly engaged to the at least one roll to rotate the roll relative to the hub portion.
Re claim 3, wherein the drive unit 10 includes a shaft 1 rotating relative to the hub portion 102, the at least one roll 8 mounted to the shaft.
Re claim 4, wherein the drive unit includes an electric motor ¶40.
Re claim 7, wherein the delivery outlet 26 includes a manifold in the hub portion 102, the manifold in fluid communication with the conduit 103.
Re claim 8, wherein the manifold defines at least one outlet 26 aligned with an inlet 23 of the at least one roll, the inlet 23 of the at least one roll being in an end face thereof [end face roller 3].
Re claim 9, wherein the floor tool has two rolls 3, the manifold has at least one of the outlet for each of the two rolls [see 112b rejection above, and fig. 3 of Liang].
Re claim 10, a liquid reservoir 91 in fluid communication with the heater 92 to supply liquid to the heater.
Re claim 11, wherein the liquid reservoir 91 and the heater 92 are in the elongated body 104.
Re claim 14, wherein the at least one roll 8 is rotatably mounted to a shaft 1 of the floor tool.
Re claim 15, wherein the floor tool has two of the roll 3, the two of the rolls being mounted to the shaft 1 [fig. 5].
Re claim 16, wherein the at least one roll 3 is matingly engaged to the shaft 1.
Re claim 17, Liang discloses a roll 8 for a steam mop, the roll comprising:
a body [42, 43] having a wall having an outer surface and defining an inner cavity;
a floor interfacing layer 3 permeable to steam, the floor interfacing layer mounted peripherally about the roll body; and
a connector portion 42 at an end of the body, the connector portion having a shaft receiving portion configured for matingly receiving a shaft 12 of the steam mop therein, the connector portion 42 having at least one fluid inlet at the connector portion in fluid communication with the inner cavity 43 for steam to be injected in the inner cavity [fig. 7];
wherein the body defines a steam path 41 between the inner cavity 43 and the floor interfacing layer 3.
Re claim 18, wherein the outer surface of the body is cylindrical, the wall having a plurality of holes 41 therethrough to define the steam path.
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) 5-6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US 2022/0218172 A1 in view of Ahmed US 2022/0338703 A1.
Re claim 5, Liang further discloses wherein the electric motor is coupled to the roll by a transmission 105, but fail to teach the transmission reduces a rotational speed of the roll relative to a rotational speed of the electric motor.
However, Ahmed teaches a steam cleaning apparatus including a drive train 304 that reduces a rotational speed of the cleaning pad 210 relative to a rotational speed of the electric motor 302 [fig. 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of a reducing drive train of Ahmed with the steam mop of Liang in order to yield the predictable result of rotating the roller at a conventional cleaning speed.
Re claim 6, Liang further discloses wherein the transmission 105 includes a belt and pulleys or gears.
Re claims 12-13, Liang fail to teach wherein the floor tool includes a rotative head rotatably coupled to the elongated body for rotation, the rotative head forming a rotational joint with an end of the elongated body, and wherein the conduit is routed inside the rotative head and the hub portion.
However, Ahmed teaches a steam cleaning apparatus including a steam generator 112 [fig. 1] inside an elongated body 202, wherein a floor tool 206 [fig. 2] includes a rotative head [shown as axes 201, 203, ¶40 “a wand 202 having a handle 204 pivotally coupled to a cleaning head 206”] rotatably coupled to the elongated body 202 for rotation, the rotative head forming a rotational joint with an end of the elongated body 202, and wherein the conduit 800 is routed inside the rotative head and the hub portion 206 [figs. 8A, 8B, 22].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rotative head of Ahmed with the steam mop of Liang in order to yield the predictable result of pivoting for ease of cleaning movement.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US 2022/0218172 A1.
Re claim 19, Liang teaches a method for defining a steam path between a floor tool 102 of a steam mop and an outer surface of a roll 3, comprising:
unscrewing a roll 3 out of engagement from a shaft 1 of the floor tool [figs. 6-7, ¶23-24];
subsequently screwing the roll into engagement with the shaft of the floor tool [fig. 5, ¶22], for an end of the roll having at least one inlet to be adjacent to a steam outlet of the floor tool; and
activating a heater 92 of the steam mop for steam to be generated and to follow a steam path 42 [fig. 4] being sequentially through the steam outlet 26, the at least one inlet 25, an inner cavity 2 of the other roll and through the outer surface of the roll.
Liang does not specifically teach the subsequently screwing is for another roll into engagement with the shaft of the floor tool. However, the Examiner takes Official notice that changing rollers (or pads) in a cleaning apparatus is routing and conventional.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change rolls in order to yield the predictable result of using a clean roller while cleaning the used unscrewed roller.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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 at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights