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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species F in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species listing was incomplete, indicating that species F, figures 4-5 “rolled edge 9 is employed with a joint portion 8 having a contact wall that is ‘concave and curved’”. Applicant also argues that the species A-F do not present a search burden. This is not found persuasive because, while examiner concurs to the election of species F which was not previously indicated by examiner, the shapes of the “outer protrusion” 9 and the “joint portion” have 6 different variants, and is therefore considered a search burden. Claim 2 requires “outer protrusion is a rolled edge” which omits Species C, D, E. Then, Claims 7 and 14 require “inclined” joint portion, which omits species A and C. Claims 8 and 15 then specifically claim species B and F. By applicant’s election of species F, applicant has merely elected the species with the most claims; applicant does not show that the claims do not present a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “edge” and “tail end” of claims 1 and 4, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “first connector” and “second connector” in claim 10. These phrases use generic term “connector”, which is a place holder for threads as defined in claim 11, or for “wedge groove” and “wedge head” as disclosed in [0039].
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, applicant claims “an edge” which is not shown in the drawings, nor is the “tail end” of claim 4 shown in the drawings. The record is not clear what the difference between these parts are. Examiner assumes that “an edge” is equivalent to the terminal end of the first rod body, and that the “tail end” is an edge of a metal sheet, which is interior of the “rolled edge” of claim 2.
The record is not clear of the scope of claim 1. Applicant claims “rod connection structure”, which indicates that the rod is not intended to be included; this phrase indicates “rod” is the intended combination with the connection structure. Examiner notes that claim 1 only includes a “hollow space” and an “insertion portion”, but does not claim any structure of the connection structure. Applicant does positively include two rods, which examiner assumes one of the rods is a handle, based on claim 13.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, applicant claims “formed by” method steps. Examiner notes that applicant is not claiming a method of making; applicant is claiming a device after it has been formed. Therefore, the structure inferred by the method steps is met in the prior art, but the steps of the method of making the device does not otherwise alter the structure. Further, applicant claims a “weld seam” but does not show such a seam in the drawings, nor does applicant give any structure of this seam. Applicant merely discloses it is “formed at the joint”. Therefore, applicant cannot add this feature into the drawings without adding new matter. Examiner assumes the weld seam is not critical structure to the rods claimed. Further, the weld seam is a feature of the rod, not the connection structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 18, applicant claims “a tail end of the rolled edge”, but does not include the “tail end” in the drawings, or clearly describe it in the specification.
Regarding claims 12, applicant claims “and/or”. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation is “or”.
Regarding claim 13, applicant claims “mop rod, comprising the rod connection structure according to claim 1”. The record is not clear how claim 13 is different in scope from claim 1. Examiner assumes that applicant intends to claim that the rod handle of claim 1 is attached to a mop head. Examiner suggests applicant positively claim the mop head for definiteness.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2024/0173842 Liou, in view of 2170639 Hopkins.
PNG
media_image2.png
632
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Liou discloses a rod connection structure (figure 2, and two rod bodies, see 112b rejection above), comprising a rod body, wherein the rod body comprises a first rod body 21 and a second rod body 22;
a lower end of the first rod body 21 is provided with a hollow space (into which 22 is inserted); and the hollow space forms an opening on an end surface of the lower end of the first rod body (as shown in figures 3-5);
one end of the second rod body 22 is provided with an insertion portion (narrow portion 221); and the insertion portion 221 of the second rod body 22 is inserted into the hollow space of the first rod body 21 through the opening at the lower end of the first rod body (as shown in figures 3-5), thereby connecting the second rod body to the first rod body (as shown in figures 3-5); and
the first rod body is made of a material; and the opening of the first rod body extends outward to form an outer protrusion (as annotated).
Liou discloses the first and second bodies are tubes, but does not disclose the particular material of the first rod body 21, or that the protrusion is at the edge of the opening of the first rod body.
Hopkins discloses it is old and well known to make tubes (figure 7) out of metal (“sheet metal” line 1), the sheet metal is rolled to have a soldered seam 12 and “rolled seams 22” at the edge of the tube (as shown in figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the female tube/first rod body of Liou in the old and well known manner of building tubes, as taught by Hopkins. Making first rod body 21 of Liou in the old and well known manner of Hopkins results in the inclusion of a soldered seam 12 and a rolled edge 22, made in the old and well known manner, which results in having a protrusion required by Liou in an old and well known location as taught by Hopkins. Examiner contends that the material of Liou is not disclosed, and therefore, the choice to make the device of Liou in an old and well known manner would be an obvious choice in the manner of fabricating, resulting on the device of Liou. Further, the manner of making first body 21 of Liou in the manner of Hopkins would result in the required protrusion of Liou in a similar location as taught by Liou, but in the location as taught by Hopkins at the “edge” of the rod body. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 1, wherein the first rod body 21 (of Liou formed in the old and well known manner as taught in Hopkins) is formed by (examiner reminds applicant that the method of making is not claimed; however, the resulting structure later claimed by applicant IS met in the prior art) rolling a metal sheet (line 1 of Hopkins) and welding (soldering) the metal sheet at a joint 12 (of Hopkins); and a weld seam is formed at the joint 12 (figure 7 of Hopkins); the second rod body (of Liou) comprises a body portion (annotated), a joint portion (inclined surface, as annotated), and the insertion portion (narrow section as annotated in Liou); the insertion portion is connected to one end of the body portion through the joint portion (as shown in figure 2); and
a diameter of the insertion portion is at least smaller than a diameter of the body portion connected to the joint portion (as shown in figure 2 of Liou); and
the outer protrusion (as annotated in figure 2 of Liou) is a rolled edge formed by the metal sheet at the edge of the opening of the first rod body (location as taught by the Hopkins figure 7) by at least extending outward from the weld seam (as is taught by both Liou and Hopkins); and
the outer protrusion is provided with a curved surface (as shown in figure 2 of Liou, formed by “rolling” as taught by Hopkins).
Regarding claim 9, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 1,wherein the second rod body 22 is detachably connected to the first rod body 21 (as shown in figures 5 and 6 of Liou).
Regarding claim 10, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 9, wherein a first connector 213 is provided in the hollow space of the first rod body 21 (as shown in figure 5); the insertion portion of the second rod body 22 is fixedly connected to a second connector 25 (as shown in figure 5); and the second connector 25 is connected to the first connector 213, thereby connecting the second rod body to the first rod body (as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 1, wherein the body portion, the joint portion, and the insertion portion of the second rod body (all annotated above) are integrated as a whole (as shown in figure 2).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou in view of Hopkins, in further view of 2018/0154510 Monahan.
Liou discloses the handle/rod bodies are attached to a tool head 30, but does not disclose that the tool is a cleaning tool, or a mop head in particular.
Monahan discloses a multi-rod body device relates to “handles for handle held implements, such as broom and mops and other cleaning tools and long handled tools” [0001].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a mop head as taught by Monahan to the long handled tool as taught by Liou, so that the long handled tool of Liou can be used in the manner of other long handled tools, like for mopping.
Regarding claim 14, please see the discussion of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-8, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou in view of Hopkins as applied to claim 2 above, and optionally further in view of EP3112091 Deville.
Regarding claim 3, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 2, wherein the curved surface of the rolled edge (taught in Liou, “rolled” in Hopkins) of the first rod body 21 abuts against an outer surface of the joint portion of the second rod body. Examiner contends that the location of the rolled edges/protrusion of Liou when made in the manner of Hopkins, would result in
PNG
media_image3.png
507
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the contact of the rolled edge and the “joint portion” of Liou, in the manner shown by annotated figure 3. However, should applicant disagree, the following rejection would apply:
Deville discloses a first rod portion 5 with a curved joint section 54, insertion section 56, and a second rod portion 3 with a curved edge 36, the curved edge and the joint section 54 abut each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to push the first rod 21 of Liou made in the manner of Hopkins in order to abut the joint portion of Liou, as is old and well known taught by Deville, in order to create a more secure connection between the rod portions of Liou. Examiner notes that whether or not the rolled edge/projection of Liou created by the manner and location of Hopkins contacts the joint portion of Liou does not affect the form, function, or use, of the rod connection as taught by Liou. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 4, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 3, wherein a tail end (edge) of the rolled edge is rolled over a highest endpoint of the rolled edge (in the manner taught by Hopkins).
Regarding claim 5, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 3, wherein the rolled edge is a circle of rolled edge (formed by “rolling” as taught by Hopkins) formed by extending the metal sheet at the edge of the opening of the first rod body outward (examiner notes that the prior art teaches the structure claimed by applicant, the structure can be formed by many methods); and the circle of rolled edge completely or partially abuts against the joint portion (as discussed in claim 3).
Regarding claim 6, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claim 5, wherein the rolled edge (as taught by Hopkins) is rolled into a ring (as required in Liou) with a circular or elliptical cross-section (as required in Liou).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claims 3 and 4 respectively, wherein the joint portion (as annotated) is provided with an inclined contact wall (as shown in Liou); and the curved surface of the rolled edge abuts against an outer surface of the contact wall (as discussed in claim 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Liou as modified discloses the rod connection structure according to claims 7 and 5 respectively, wherein the contact wall is inclined and flat (as shown in Liou, “curved” is shown in Deville).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou, made in the manner of Hopkins, applied with a mop head of Monahan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Deville.
Regarding claim 17, please see discussion of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, please see discussion of claim 4,
Regarding claim 19, please see discussion of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, please see discussion of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights