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 .
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 mixing valve of claim 10 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/10/26.
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.
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eklund (US 2007/0192973 A1).
As to claim 9, Eklund includes a floor processing machine comprising:
one or more tool heads (8) configured to engage a floor surface;
a nozzle system (9) configured to distribute a liquid onto the floor surface (para 10);
a liquid source (11) configured to provide the liquid to the nozzle system; and
a treatment injector (12, 23, 20, 35, 24, 29; Each of these are involved in mixing the cleaning solution in 12 with the liquid in 11) positioned fluidly between the liquid source and the nozzle system (Fig. 2), wherein the treatment injector selectively introduces a treatment material (such as a detergent) into the liquid prior to the liquid reaching the floor surface (para 12).
As to claim 10, wherein the treatment injector comprises a container (12) for holding the treatment material (para 10) and a mixing valve (35) for combining the treatment material with the liquid prior to reaching the nozzle system (para 12).
As to claim 11, comprising a collection assembly for collecting a slurry (The collection assembly is the “vacuum pickup system”, which would vacuum a mixture of dirt on the surface being cleaned and cleaning liquid that had been injected onto the surface; para 10), wherein the slurry is formed by the one or more tool heads engaging the floor surface (After the cleaning liquid is sprayed onto the surface, scrubber 8 would mix the dirt and cleaning liquid together; para 10).
As to claim 12, wherein the collection assembly comprises at least one squeegee (6; para 10).
Claim 14 is rejected for the reasons discussed in claim 12.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklund (US 2007/0192973 A1) in view of Berberian (US 2,999,258).
As to claim 13, comprising a collection assembly for collecting a slurry (The collection assembly is the “vacuum pickup system”, which would vacuum a mixture of dirt on the surface being cleaned and cleaning liquid that had been injected onto the surface; para 10), formed by the one or more tool heads generating debris in an enclosure of the floor processing machine and mixing the debris with the liquid to form the slurry (After the cleaning liquid is sprayed onto the surface, scrubber 8 would mix the dirt and cleaning liquid together; para 10).
Eklund does not include the one or more tool heads generating debris specifically in an enclosure.
Berberian includes a floor processing machine having one or more tool heads (14, 14a, 14b) generating debris in an enclosure (11a) [Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to modify Eklund so that the one or more tool heads generate debris specifically in an enclosure, as taught by Berberian, the enclosure shielding everything from splatters and enhancing the cleaning ability of the machine due to the enclosure being a squeegee (column 4, lines 3-7).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklund (US 2007/0192973 A1) in view of Berberian (US 2,999,258), and further in view of Johnson (US 2010/0037915).
As to claim 15, Eklund does not include wherein the treatment material is a flocculant.
Johnson includes a floor processing machine using either detergent or a flocculant (para 19) to help the cleaning ability of a tool head (26).
It would have been obvious to substitute the treatment material (a detergent) for a flocculant, as taught by Johnson, in order to accelerate the rate at which dust particles clump together (para 19).
Claim 16 is rejected for the reasons discussed in claim 15.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklund (US 2007/0192973 A1) in view of Field (US 2007/0186954).
As to claim 17, Eklund does not include wherein the nozzle system includes at least one nozzle oriented toward one or more tool heads.
Field includes a floor processing machine with a nozzle system (352, 354) including at least one nozzle (354) oriented toward one or more tool heads (340) [Fig. 13 and para 195].
It would have been obvious to modify the nozzle system to include at least one nozzle oriented toward one or more tool heads, as taught by Field, in order to enhance the cleaning ability of the tool head.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklund (US 2007/0192973 A1) in view of Johnson (US 2010/0037915) and Field (US 2007/0186954).
Claim 18 includes the features of claims 10 and 11, which are anticipated by Eklund.
Also included are the features of claim 15 (Eklund was modified by Johnson to include these), and the features of claim 17 (Eklund was modified by Field to include these).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklund (US 2007/0192973 A1) in view of Berberian (US 2,999,258), Johnson (US 2010/0037915), and Field (US 2007/0186954).
Claim 19 includes the features of claim 10, which are anticipated by Eklund.
Also included are the features of claim 13 (Eklund was modified by Berberian to include these), claim 15 (Eklund was modified by Johnson to include these), and the features of claim 17 (Eklund was modified by Field to include these).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights