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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 11 and 15 – 20 are pending. Claims 21 – 30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 10, 13 and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Grolman et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,666,685) in view of Geng (CN 120021850 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Von Grolman teaches a cleaning device (hand-held unit, 200; Fig. 11), comprising: an inner bracket (squeegeeing unit, 232), wherein the inner bracket (232) comprises a squeegee head bracket (squeegee head, 225) and a handle bracket (handle, 236), and the squeegee head bracket (225) is fastened to the handle bracket (236); and an outer casing (230; Fig. 12), wherein the outer casing (230) covers the inner bracket (232) and is fastened to an exterior of the inner bracket (232, Fig. 11) wherein the outer casing (230) comprises a squeegee head portion (wiper plate, 238) and a handle portion (handle, 234), the squeegee head portion (238) comprises a squeegee head body (238; Fig. 11) and a squeegee portion (front edge, 240) disposed at a front end of the squeegee head body (Fig. 11), a thickness of the squeegee portion (240) is less than a thickness of the squeegee head body (238; Fig. 11), and the squeegee portion is flexibly deformable (made of plastic; Col. 4 lines 9 -12); and the squeegee head body (238) covers an exterior of the squeegee head bracket (225), and the handle portion (234) covers an exterior of the handle bracket (236; Fig. 11); and a hook-shaped structure (211; Fig. 12) is formed at a tail of the handle portion (234).
Von Grolman does not teach a tail of the hook-shaped structure has an elastically deformable structure; wherein in the hook-shaped structure, a part with a bending curvature exceeding 900 from a tail end of a handle has an elastically deformable structure.
Geng, however, teaches a tail of the hook-shaped structure (2) has an elastically deformable structure (Paragraph [n0034]); wherein in the hook-shaped structure (2), a part with a bending curvature exceeding 90 degrees from a tail end of a handle (3) has an elastically deformable structure (Paragraph [n0035]; Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include a tail of the hook-shaped structure has an elastically deformable structure; wherein in the hook-shaped structure, a part with a bending curvature exceeding 900 from a tail end of a handle has an elastically deformable structure, as taught by Geng, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach the handle bracket is a plastic injection-molded part; and the squeegee head bracket is a metal part; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include the handle bracket is a plastic injection-molded part; and the squeegee head bracket is a metal part, since 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 (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 3, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein a handle connecting portion (cutout, 202) is formed on the handle bracket (234); a squeegee head connecting portion (stop strip, 252) is formed on the squeegee head bracket (225); and the handle bracket (234) and the squeegee head bracket (225) are fastened via the handle connecting portion (202) and the squeegee head connecting portion (252).
Regarding Claim 4, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein the handle connecting portion (202) is connected to an exterior of the squeegee head connecting portion (252).
Von Grolman does not teach the connection through injection molding; however, “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Regarding Claim 5, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein the squeegee head connecting portion (252) has a non-circular structure (Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 6 Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein a surface of the squeegee head connecting portion (252) has a knurled structure (Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 7 Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein the handle bracket has a hollow structure (Col. 2, lines 13 – 16).
Regarding Claim 8, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach wherein the handle bracket comprises a first plastic bracket and a second plastic bracket, and the first plastic bracket and the second plastic bracket are joined together to form the hollow structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include the handle bracket comprises a first plastic bracket and a second plastic bracket, and the first plastic bracket and the second plastic bracket are joined together to form the hollow structure, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 2, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach wherein a first bent structure is formed at the tail of the handle bracket.
Geng, however, teaches a first bent structure (2) is formed at the tail of the handle bracket (3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include a first bent structure is formed at the tail of the handle bracket, as taught by Geng, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 9, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach wherein a bending curvature of the first bent structure is less than 180°.
Geng, however, teaches a bending curvature of the first bent structure is less than 180° (Paragraph [n0035]; Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include a bending curvature of the first bent structure is less than 180°, as taught by Geng, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13 Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein a tail of the hook-shaped structure has an elastically deformable structure (handle 230 is made of plastic; Col. 4 lines 9 -12; thus hook shaped structure is elastically deformable).
Regarding Claim 15 Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein an extension bracket (portion extending past 212) is connected to the tail of the handle bracket (236; Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 16, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 15, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach the extension bracket is a flexible bracket; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include the extension bracket is a flexible bracket, since 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 (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 17, Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 15, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach the extension bracket is a rigid bracket, and the extension bracket is non-rigidly connected to the handle bracket; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include the extension bracket is a rigid bracket, and the extension bracket is non-rigidly connected to the handle bracket, since 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 (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 18 Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach wherein an adhesive layer is further disposed between the inner bracket and the outer casing, and the adhesive layer is configured to increase a bonding force between the inner bracket and the outer casing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include an adhesive layer is further disposed between the inner bracket and the outer casing, and the adhesive layer is configured to increase a bonding force between the inner bracket and the outer casing, since 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 (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 19 Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device according to claim 18, as discussed above.
Von Grolman does not explicitly teach the adhesive layer covers most of a surface area of the inner bracket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Von Grolman to further include the adhesive layer covers most of a surface area of the inner bracket, since 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 (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 20 Von Grolman, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (220; Fig. 11) wherein an anti-slip structure (212; Fig. 13) is disposed on the inner bracket, and the anti-slip structure (212) is configured to restrict relative sliding between the inner bracket (232) and the outer casing (230).
Allowable Subject Matter
The indication of allowable subject matter of claims 12 – 14 in the Non-Final rejection dated May 6, 2026 has been reconsidered and amended claim 1 with included claims 12 – 14 are rejected in this office action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 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, Monica 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights