DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 15 January 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 15 January 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because the cited MPL docs do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Additionally, no English language translation has been provided for either cited NPL doc. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (CN 105476547) in view of Yang et al. (2009/0089967).
Regarding claim 15, Finn discloses a suction nozzle wherein, a suction port (10) is formed on the bottom of the suction nozzle, an advancing direction of the suction nozzle during the operation process is set as a forward direction, a front sealing strip (11) is arranged on the front side of the suction port, the front sealing strip comprises a fixed end and a free end extending toward a working surface (see comments in Response to Arguments section below for further detail), the front sealing strip is made of a flexible material (second to last paragraph of specification), and the front sealing strip is arranged to deviate from the forward direction (inherently in some manner due to disclosure as having rubber elasticity), with a projection of the fixed end on the working surface is positioned before a projection of the free end on the working surface, wherein a suction port cover plate (lower surface of lower housing 2) is mounted on the bottom of the suction nozzle, the suction port (10) is formed through the suction port cover plate; the suction port cover plate comprises a planar portion (adjacent to portion 5.3 in Figs. 1 and 2 and reference number 8 in Fig. 4) on a rear side. However, Finn fails to disclose that the suction port cover plate comprises an inclined portion on the front side with a top portion of the inclined portion located in front of the front edge of the suction port, and a bottom portion of the inclined portion located behind the front edge of the suction port, wherein the front sealing strip is different from the inclined portion. Yang discloses a similar vacuum cleaner head, also having a flexible sealing strip (32) defining the front edge of a suction port, and teaches that the front lower edge of the main body case (equivalent to the claimed cover plate) has a front bank portion (starting at guide 34 as viewed in Figs. 1 and 3, clearly seen in Fig. 3 extending beyond the front edge of the suction port, which begins rearward of guide 34 as viewed in Fig. 3), with Yang teaching that the inclined surface allows an open front end of the suction port to clean within a corner portion defining a vertical surface and a horizontal surface (abstract, shown in Fig. 5A). Further, the concept of a front inclined surface along the base of a vacuum cleaner head is very old and well known in the art, to provide a sloped surface to ride along any elevated floor transition surfaces during use, to allow the head to smoothly lift onto the next surface, as opposed to the substantially vertical front lower wall of Finn, which would impact with such surfaces and stop or impede the forward motion cleaning head. Therefore, when the front bank portion of Yang are applied to the head of Finn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the suction port cover plate of Finn with a similar inclined portion on the front side with a top portion of the inclined portion is located in front of the front edge of the suction port, and a bottom portion of the inclined portion is located behind the front edge of the suction port, to allow the nozzle to thoroughly clean in corners along a wall, as taught by Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Finn further fails to disclose that the cleaning device is self-moving. However, the examiner previously took official notice, which was not traversed by the applicant, such that it is now considered applicant admitted prior art that it is old and well known for vacuum cleaners to be optionally configured as robotic self-driven cleaners (similar to Song), to provide automated cleaning function, with obvious advantages of cleaning surfaces without requiring assistance or operation from a human. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the cleaner of Finn as a robotic self-driven cleaner.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Finn further discloses that the front sealing strip (5.2/11) is arranged on the front side of the suction port through the fixed end (5.21).
Regarding claim 5, Finn clearly shows in Fig. 4 that the sealing strip is concentric with the upper brush housing (shown as a continuous arc therewith) and discloses that a rolling brush (not shown by Finn but repeatedly referenced) is mounted at the suction port of the suction nozzle. Finn also further references the trade name KoboldEB370 as the basis for the invention, with the improvement provided by Finn being a single piece construction. The additional extrinsic evidence provided in the YouTube video advertisement for the KoboldEB370 model, specifically 0:10-0:13 time frame, shows in slow motion that the brush is positioned to rotate very close to the internal and front portions of the housing, considered to be equivalent to the internal housing and wiper (11) of Finn, such that it would have been obvious for the brush to be mounted concentrically with the housing and wiper to maintain the close proximity of the brush with the housing as shown while preventing the brush from contacting the housing or wiper, which would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to impart additional load on the drive mechanism, reducing efficiency of the brush, as well as increasing wear on the brush, wiper and/or housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the brush concentrically within the housing and with the wiper of Finn, to maintain the close proximity of the brush with the housing as shown by the cited KoboldEB370 product and to prevent the brush from contacting the housing, being a well-known configuration in the art (also shown by Nagai et al. [US 6,345,408; Fig. 20], Muhlenkamp [US 8,887,352; Fig. 5b] and Brown et al. [US 3,266,078; Figs. 2, 4 and 5], all provided as additional extrinsic evidence).
Regarding claim 6, when provided with the inclined surface, as taught by Yang, the suction port cover plate that is mounted on the bottom of the suction nozzle, the inclined portion of the cover plate will be provided at a position beside the front side of the suction port (in a similar location as Yang) to effectively provide left and right side cover portions with inclined portions on the front side and the planar portion on the rear side, as disclosed by Finn.
Regarding claim 12, Finn further discloses the strip 11 as a “sealing strip” which would only function to “seal” if in contact with the surface being sealed, such that it further would have been obvious for the front sealing strip is greater than the height of the fixed end from the working surface, so that when the suction nozzle works (with the device placed on the working surface as intended), the free end of the front sealing strip abuts against the working surface.
Regarding claim 13, it is inherently capable for the device of Finn to be positioned such that a clearance is provided between the free end of the front sealing strip and the working surface (when the wheels roll over an obstacle to lift the front end from the surface and/or when the surface is uneven or has a gap therein).
Regarding claim 14, it is further inherently capable for the clearance discussed for claim 13 to be less than or equal to 1.5 mm (depending on the size of the obstacle being run over and/or size of deviation or gap in the surface).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the inclined front of portion 5.3 of Finn, arranged on a rear side of a suction port, may be considered to be a scraping strip, inherently capable of scraping a surface due to the inclined shape (similar to the blade of a hand tool scraper) and relatively rigid structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (CN 105476547) in view of Yang et al. (2009/0089967) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Van Der Kooi et al (9,265,394).
Regarding claim 3, Finn discloses the device with a flexible sealing strip, as discussed supra, but fails to disclose any specific thickness of the strip. Van Der Kooi discloses another similar device, also having a flexible sealing strip, teaching that properties including dimensions of the strip will affect function thereof (Col. 6, lines 37-42 and 50-52), specifically reciting 0.5-3mm as desirable and 0.85mm as most desirable for the thickness for ideal operations (Col. 6, lines 59-64). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to vary the thickness of the strip of Finn, as taught by Van Der Kooi as a result effective variable, to optimize function thereof, including desirable thicknesses within the claimed range of less than or equal to 1.8mm.
Claims 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (CN 105476547) in view of Yang et al. (2009/0089967) as applied to claims 1 and 6, and further in view of Kaffenberger et al. (EP 2105078).
Regarding claim 7, Finn also fails to disclose a soft cushion on the sides of the cover plate. Kaffenberger discloses another similar device, also having a cover plate covering the suction port, teaching that sides of the cover are provided with bristles, to assist in sealing the sides of the nozzle with the working surface, while also allowing small debris to pass therethrough and protecting the surface from contact with hard(er) portions of the nozzle. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to form similar bristles on the side portions of the cover plate of Finn, as taught by Kaffenberger, to similarly seal the sides and protect the working surface, wherein the bristles may be considered to be a soft cushion.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the contact point of the front sealing strip (rearmost edge of 11) is understood to effectively define the front of the suction port, and thus is positioned at the foremost end of the planar portion (shown to meet one another in Figs. 1-2). Additionally, a rear of the suction port is sealed by the planar portion, a left side and a right side are sealed by the rear scraping strip (considered to be equivalent to the sealing bristles taught by Kaffenberger) and a front end of the suction port is sealed by the front sealing strip.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (CN 105476547) in view of Yang et al. (2009/0089967) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Waldhauser (Re. 33,926).
Regarding claim 9, Finn fails to disclose a plurality of gaps formed on the front sealing strip at intervals. Waldhauser discloses another similar device, also having a flexible sealing strip, teaching that the strip preferably includes gaps/notches (56 or 60) spaced at intervals along the sealing strip to allow some liquid to pass therethrough when needed or when moved in a forward direction while maintaining a substantial seal with the working surface to optimize suction performance for collection of liquid/debris entering the nozzle. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to provide similar gaps in the sealing strips of Finn, as taught by Waldhauser, to allow liquid or debris to enter the nozzle while maintaining substantial seal with the working surface to optimize suction performance for collection of liquid/debris. Although Waldhauser fails to disclose any specific size for the gaps in the strip, the gaps are clearly shown to be relatively small, and Waldhauser teaches that the gaps allow air to pass through, which will effectively reduce suction within the nozzle, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the gaps to provide a desirable combination of liquid/debris passage therethrough while maintaining optimal suction therein, such that the claimed size of less than 5mm would be obvious, with the applicant failing to provide any criticality or unexpected results for the claimed range (effectively design choice for the size of the gaps).
Regarding claim 10, Waldhauser further discloses that the gaps extend the length of the strip (as seen in Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 11, the gaps taught by Waldhauser may also be considered notches that are formed on the front sealing strip at intervals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks , filed 10 June 2025, with respect to the rejections of all pending claims, specifically amended claims 1 and 15, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, because the amendments have overcome the previous rejections. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Finn in view of Yang et al., as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho et al. (2006/0282979) provides a device having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 27 August 2025