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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
The argument/remarks filed July 7, 2025 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thatcher et al (US 20090064452 A1).
In re claim 1, Thatcher discloses a surface cleaning utensil (scrubbing and combing machine, Fig. 1: 100), comprising
a wet cleaning unit (combination of scrub head assembly, Fig. 11: 310 and comb head assembly, Fig. 6: 260) having
a wetting unit (scrubbing pads, Fig. 336 and 346) and
a brush unit (comb head assembly, 260) for brushing a surface wetted by the wetting unit (scrubs and combs in one pass, see [0042]);
the brush unit (comb head assembly, 260) comprising:
a plurality of adjacent brushes (rear comb, Fig. 10: 291 and front comb, 281; these combs are part of the same assembly and are close to/adjacent to each other), each having multiple brush elements (plurality of bristles, 292 and 282) at an angle of at least 45 degrees (angle of brush element perpendicular to surface however one of ordinary skill in art will know as the brush rotates the angle of the brushes will be at least 45 degrees from the surface to be cleaned, see annotated Fig. 10, below) to a surface to be cleaned (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 – illustrates brush element perpendicular to surface to be cleaned
a driving unit (motor means, 226) for driving the plurality of adjacent brushes (rear comb, Fig. 10: 291 and front comb, 281; these combs are part of the same assembly and are close to/adjacent to each other) to move in a plane at an angle of at most 45 degrees (motor means for driving drive wheels and powering scrubbing pads and combs, see [0064] and one of ordinary skill in art will know as the topography changes the driving unit will change to move the cleaning unit with the plane of the surface to be cleaned) to the surface (comb head assembly, 260 that contains the brush, are movably and adjustably mounted, see [0070] and a swivel type adjustment of counter-balance causes a change in the downward load, see [0072]),
wherein the wet cleaning unit (combination of scrub head assembly, Fig. 11: 310 and comb head assembly, Fig. 6: 260) further comprises a drying pad (squeegee shoe, 266 having a vacuum opening, 270; for fluid and dirt drawn through, see [0075]),
the brush unit (comb head assembly, 260) being positioned between the wetting unit (scrubbing pads, Fig. 336 and 346) and the drying pad (squeegee shoe, 266 having a vacuum opening, 270; positioned between, see Fig. 2), and
wherein an air inlet (vacuum connection ports, Fig. 9: 268) is adjacent to the surface to be cleaned (vacuum connection port, 268 has a vacuum opening, 272 that is adjacent to the surface to be cleaned see, Fig.9; also the, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), see MPEP 2115) and is positioned before the wet cleaning unit (combination of scrub head assembly, Fig. 11: 310 and comb head assembly, Fig. 6: 260; and located before comb head assembly 260, see, Fig. 9) in a motion direction of the surface cleaning utensil (as the scrubbing and combing machine moves, 100; see annotated Fig. 6, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 6 – illustrates motion directions of the scrubbing/cleaning machine
In re claim 10, Thatcher et al. discloses the surface cleaning utensil of claim 1,
wherein the wet cleaning unit (combination of scrub head assembly, Fig. 11: 310 and comb head assembly, Fig. 6: 260) further comprises a ramp at a front end (scrubbing pad skirt, Fig. 12: 352, shows a slope to the boundary of the front end of the cover for the scrub head assembly, see Fig. 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(s) 2 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher et al (US 20090064452 A1) in view of Torta (US 4771498 A).
In re claim 2, Thatcher et al. discloses the surface cleaning utensil of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of adjacent brushes (rear comb, Fig. 10: 291 and front comb, 281; these combs are part of the same assembly and are close to/adjacent to each other) have a rotation axis at an angle (brushes are parallel to the surface to be cleaned, see Fig. 1).
Thatcher et al does not disclose the brushes having a rotation axis at an angle of at least 45 degrees, to the surface to be cleaned and wherein at least 50% of an area defined by a circumference of each brush is provided with brush elements.
However, Torta teaches a rotary cleaning brush device, of brushes (Fig. 2: 2) having a rotation axis at an angle of at least 45 degrees, to the surface to be cleaned (As best understood by this examiner the brush device is perpendicular and able to move with the surface to be cleaned, see Fig. 2 and rotatable about axes 4, to act on a surface, 7, see Col: 3, lines 5 – 8) wherein at least 50% of an area defined by a circumference of each brush is provided with brush elements (Bristles are fully defined by circumference of brush, 2, see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to replace the brush orientation of Thatcher et al with the teachings of Torta because the orientation of the rotation axis allows for optimum cleaning operation of side-by-side brushes (Torta: Col 2: lines 12 - 15).
In re claim 3, Thatcher et al. as modified teaches the surface cleaning utensil of claim 2,
wherein the adjacent brushes (rear comb, Fig. 10: 291 and front comb, 281; these combs are part of the same assembly and are close to/adjacent to each other) have opposite rotation directions (counter-rotating brushes, see [0044]).
In re claim 4, Thatcher et al. as modified teaches the surface cleaning utensil of claim 3.
Thatcher et al. as modified does not teach,
wherein the brushes comprise gear-shaped elements.
However, Torta teaches a rotary cleaning brush device,
wherein the brushes (Fig. 2: 2) comprise gear-shaped elements (orderly succession of projections 8 and recessed, 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Thatcher et al with the brushes comprising gear-shaped elements as taught by Torta because it provides a simple device that can be incorporated to a variety of cleaners/sweeping equipment for the orientation of the rotation axis allows for optimum cleaning operation of side-by-side brushes and (Torta: Col 2: lines 12 - 15).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher et al (US 20090064452 A1) and in further view of Wadelius (WO 2014146732 A1).
In re claim 5, Thatcher et al discloses the surface cleaning utensil of claim 1.
Thatcher et al does not disclose,
wherein the driving unit is arranged for causing a translational movement of the brush with respect to the surface cleaning utensil.
Wadelius teaches a vacuum cleaner with rear brush mechanism,
wherein the driving unit (combination of brush movement mechanism, Fig. 1: 19 and movement translation device, 33) is arranged for causing a translational movement of the brush (brush holder, 18) with respect to the surface cleaning utensil (adapted to transform rotational force into a translation movement of rear brush holder, see Col 3: Lines 30 – 32 and Col 4: 1 - 4).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to incorporate the rotational movement with the teachings of Wadelius of also having a translational movement of the brush because it provides for advantages of linear movement of the brush and less expensive, easy, and straightforward element to manufacture for desired linear function (Wadelius: Col 5: lines 5 – 9).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher et al (US 20090064452 A1) in view of Burgoon (US 6108859 A).
In re claim 7, Thatcher et al. discloses a vacuum cleaner (vacuum unit, 126 and 128), comprising a nozzle (bottom end of vacuum 126 and 128, see Fig. 5) formed by the surface cleaning utensil of claim 1,
A suction unit (squeegee shoe, Fig. 9: 266)
a dirt separation unit (waste water tank, 122) for separating dirt (fluid and dirt are drawn, see [0075]).
Thatcher et al does not disclose a generation of an air flow through the air inlet and separating dirt from the air flow.
However, Burgoon teaches a high efficiency squeegee, of generating an air flow through the air inlet and separating from dirt from the air flow (squeegee, Fig. 2: 70, provides openings (Fig. 6: 126) with a wide gap (128) for liquid to pass and a narrower gap (130) for the passage of ambient air, thus separating liquid from air, see Col 5: lines 13 – 16).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Thatcher et al with the teachings of Burgoon of having a suction unit that generates air flow and separating the dirt/liquid from the air flow because it is economical to manufacture and use and it reduces the power required to remove liquid from a surface with an associated vacuum system (Burgoon: Col 1: lines 55 – 62).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher et al (US 20090064452 A1) in view of Stout (US 3445877 A).
In re claim 8, Thatcher et al as modified teaches the surface cleaning utensil of claim 5.
Thatcher et al as modified does not teach, wherein the translational movement of the brush with respect to the surface cleaning utensil is carried out by a moving magnet.
However, Stout teaches a polishing machine, wherein translational movement of the brush with respect to the surface cleaning utensil is carried out by a moving magnet (rotating magnet, Fig. 2: 50; the buffing head will oscillate under the influence of the rotating magnet, see Col. 3: lines 5 – 12).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Thatcher et al. with the teachings of translational movement of the brush with respect to the surface cleaning utensil is carried out by a moving magnet as taught by Stout because it will help with producing a smooth, unstreaked finish on the worked surface. (Stout.: Col. 1: Lines 11 – 14).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher et al (US 20090064452 A1) in view of Boender et al (US 10278559 B1).
In re claim 9, Thatcher et al. discloses the surface cleaning utensil of claim 1, having adjacent brushes (rear comb, Fig. 10: 291 and front comb, 281; these combs are part of the same assembly and are close to/adjacent to each other) and discloses in [0072] the use of different cleaning types and configurations to clean different flooring types.
Thatcher et al does not disclose, wherein the adjacent brushes are mounted at distances less than a maximum diameter of each of the brushes.
However, Boender et al teaches a floor cleaner, wherein adjacent brushes (Fig. 3: 28 a and 28b) are mounted at distances less than a maximum diameter of each of the brushes (mounting distance less than diameter, see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Thatcher et al. because it would be obvious to change the distance and diameter of the adjacent brushes as taught by Boender et al. as such modifications as change in distance and size has been held/retained in the art, see MPEP 2144.04. In Boender the motor is above and drives gears to rotate the brushes as shown in Fig. 5 as is similar in Thatcher et al in Fig. 10. Thatcher et al in [0072] provides different cleaning tools and configurations depending on the requirement for different flooring types, thus the diameter and distance can be optimized based on the tool type needed for the flooring type. Boender provides for showing a variation of different diameters/width of brushes and as long as the brushes can counter rotate as disclosed in Thatcher et al, it provides for a cleaning ratio of tool type to flooring type which is a result effective variable in which it intends to clean and therefore its cleaning effectiveness over the cleaning area is enhanced.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112b rejections for claim 7, applicant’s amendment has overcome the
rejection and the rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2025 have been fully considered.
In regards to the rejection of Claim 1, under 35 USC 102, applicant states that Thatcher fails to disclose, the currently amended claim 1, having the limitation, “an air inlet is adjacent to the surface to be cleaned and is positioned before the wet cleaning unit in a motion direction of the surface cleaning utensil“. However, the rejection is maintained as Thatcher discloses, the air inlet is adjacent (not distant, nearby as is given in the definition below) to the surface to be cleaned as the vacuum connection port, 268 has a vacuum opening, 272 that is adjacent (not distant, nearby as is given in the definition below) to the surface to be cleaned, which is shown in, Fig. 9, below and the rejection of the same above. Also, the, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), see MPEP 2115.
In addition, applicant argues, Thatcher fails to disclose “a plurality of adjacent brushes”. The definition of adjacent, by Merriam Webster as provided below is (not distant or nearby):
PNG
media_image3.png
478
1067
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the office still exerts that the front comb 281 is “not distant” but is “nearby”, the rear comb 291. Please see below:
PNG
media_image4.png
384
451
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claim 1 as set forth is rejected and therefore the dependent claims 2 – 5 and 7 - 10 are not allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723