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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however, they must describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately. MPEP § 1503.01(II). It is suggested that Reproductions 1.8 and 1.9 be described as – enlarged -- top and bottom views, for accuracy, since they appear to be substantially enlarged on the drawing sheets in comparison to the other full-view figures.
Drawings
1) The figure labels are objected to because they are too small. This could be problematic when the printed patent is further reduced in size to two-thirds in reproduction. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. 37 CFR § 1.84(p)(3). Correction is needed.
2) Applicant is reminded that the photographs or other graphic representations accompanying an international application filed on paper shall be either pasted or printed directly onto a separate sheet of A4 paper which is white and opaque (21.0 cm. by 29.7 cm.). MPEP 2909.02, Hague Administration Instructions Section 401(c).
Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” 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).
Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a) consisting of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.) (see 37 CFR § 1.1026 and MPEP § 2909.02). 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.
Non-Final Rejection under 35 USC § 112(b)
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the scope of the claimed design is confusing. In most of the reproductions, it is the examiner’s understanding that the body and foot of the floor cleaning appliance are disclaimed, and the claim is directed only to the handheld part or handle portion.
However, the lines used to depict the treads on the wheels merge to form solid black areas. This could be interpreted as being claimed features since broken lines are not obvious. The same is true of a pattern of circular vent holes on the rear of the appliance. Until greatly magnified, broken lines are not apparent; therefore, the depiction of these features confuses the scope of the claim. See examples below in Reproduction 1.3 and 1.8:
PNG
media_image1.png
374
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, the scope of the claim must be clear and consistent in all reproductions. If the wheels and vent holes are disclaimed, the broken lines depicting these features must be more obvious in all figures. Clarity and correction is needed.
Note Regarding Applicant’s IDS
The foreign patent document cited on Line 1 of the IDS form submitted on 09/12/2025 has not been considered by the Examiner because it does not conform to the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.98(a)(2)(i). A legible copy of each foreign patent must be submitted. Therefore, foreign patent on Line 1 has been lined through.
The foreign patent has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement, or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR § 1.97(c) and (e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). See 37 CFR § 1.97(i).
Since the submission appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above mentioned omission in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR § 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR § 1.97(i).
It is politely requested only to re-submit those items that were considered deficient. Duplicate submissions are neither required nor desired.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as set forth above.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case:
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will
be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss
the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to
practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau
pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such
representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic
entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO.
Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or In Person Interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice
before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor
and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of
attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80
“Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO’, may be used for this purpose:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered
practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an
interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A)
(available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit
forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate
by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at kimberly.barnes@uspto.gov to
arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the
proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner's work
schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to
determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless
appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439
“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization
for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO
web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable
ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO
Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte
Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
o https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-
and-resources
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY BARNES whose telephone number is (571)270-0226. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time.
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, Justin Jonaitis can be reached at 571-270-5150. 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.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a
patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or
by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See
37 CFR 1.33(b).
/KIMBERLY BARNES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2921
Prosecution Insights