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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10, and 12-14 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 12 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, consider -- the front-end boundary having a predetermined number of front openings between adjacent strip sections of the plurality of strip sections--.
In claim 8, consider -- wherein a width of the openings left by the rear guide elements is equal to or exceeds a width of the rear openings--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bach (DE 102008021353 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
1101
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. figs. 3a-3b (Bach)
With respect to claim 1, Bach discloses: A vacuum cleaner nozzle, comprising:
an air inlet area having a front-end boundary formed by a brush strip having a plurality of strip sections (air inlet area 4, figs. 3a-3b; [0049]; see strip sections in ann. figs. 3a-3b above of the front end boundary), the front-end boundary having a predetermined number of front openings between adjacent strip sections of the plurality of strip section (air inlet area 4, figs. 3a-3b; [0049]; front end boundary shown in ann. fig. above, number of openings predetermined as part of structure, between two adjacent strip sections, exemplarily shown by the bolded strip sections in the detail towards the right side of ann. figs. 3a-3b), the front openings vertically aligned with each other and perpendicular to a front edge of the vacuum cleaner nozzle (ann. figs. 3a-3b, there are plural front openings, each perpendicular to the front edge as indicated by the dashed line in the upper left side of the annotated image, and vertically aligned by parallel perpendicular lines with each other);
and front guide elements having triangular structures, each triangular structure closed off by a corresponding strip section of the front-end boundary for guiding dirt towards the front openings (the front guide elements have triangular structures; see fig. 3a-3b above and the front guide elements are closed by the front end boundary in manner analogous to instant figure, where there is a gap between the front guide elements and the front end boundary with a vertically, relative to ann. figs 3a-3b, above, corresponding strip section below it; examiner notes that corresponding can be interpreted more broadly), each opening of a plurality of openings left by the front guide elements aligned with corresponding a front opening in the front-end boundary (the plurality of openings aligned as shown in ann. fig. 3a-3b above, corresponding can be interpreted as vertically [relative to ann. figs. 3a-3b] corresponding, or more broadly) and being configured to allow shifting of the guided dirt directly towards the corresponding adjacent front openings (see arrangement of air flow arrow in fig. 3b; [0049] - “With an arrangement of several rows offset from each other, the dirt particles at the front row are deflected and moved towards the center of nozzle 1”) , a width of the openings left by the front guide elements is equal to or exceeds a width of the front openings (see ann. fig. 3b, above, at right)
With respect to claim 4, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the vacuum cleaner nozzle is supported by the front-end boundary at a front of the vacuum cleaner nozzle (front end boundary elements engage surface to be cleaned as in [0020], referencing the dirt trap elements which, as mapped in the rejection of claim 1 above, includes elements that form the front end boundary)
With respect to claim 6, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the front guide elements are flexible (dirt trapping elements are soft and flexible; [0020-0021]).
With respect to claim 7, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the front guide elements are configured to reach to a surface to be cleaned in use of the vacuum cleaner nozzle on such a surface, for wiping dirt towards the front openings ([0020] discloses how the elements engage surface to be cleaned, leaving no marks; [0049] explains the deflection of dirt particles; see air flow path in fig. 3b)
With respect to claim 8, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the air inlet area has a rear-end boundary having a predetermined number of rear openings (ann. fig. 3b, above, front end boundary explained in rejection of claim 1 above, and rear end boundary is symmetrical, predetermined as part of structure), wherein the vacuum cleaner nozzle further comprises rear guide elements having a surface at an angle to the rear-end boundary for guiding dirt towards the rear openings (ann. fig. 3b, above, front end boundary explained in rejection of claim 1 above, and rear guide elements is symmetrical), each opening of a plurality of openings left by the rear guide elements being configured to allow shifting of the guided dirt directly towards the corresponding adjacent rear openings, a width of the openings left by the rear guide elements is equal to or exceeds a width of the rear openings (the explanation using ann. fig. 3b, above applies to the rear end boundary/rear guide elements, and openings thereof, symmetrically, the triangular elements provide for a narrowing width).
With respect to claim 10, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, and further discloses: wherein the rear-end boundary is formed by a flexible strip (dirt trapping elements are soft and flexible; [0020-0021], the strip is formed by the bristles in a triangular arrangement).
With respect to claim 12, Bach discloses: A vacuum cleaner nozzle, comprising:
an air inlet area having a front-end boundary formed by a brush strip having a plurality of strip sections (air inlet area 4, figs. 3a-3b; [0049]; see strip sections in ann. figs. 3a-3b above of the front end boundary), the front-end boundary having a predetermined number of front openings between adjacent strip sections of the plurality of strip sections (air inlet area 4, figs. 3a-3b; [0049]; front end boundary shown in ann. fig. above, number of openings predetermined as part of structure, between two adjacent strip sections, exemplarily shown by the bolded strip sections in the detail towards the right side of ann. figs. 3a-3b), the front openings vertically aligned with each other and perpendicular to a front edge of the vacuum cleaner nozzle (ann. figs. 3a-3b, there are plural front openings, each perpendicular to the front edge as indicated by the dashed line in the upper left side of the annotated image, and vertically aligned by parallel perpendicular lines with each other);
and flexible front guide elements having triangular structures, each triangular structure closed off by a corresponding strip section of the front-end boundary for guiding dirt towards the front openings (the front guide elements have triangular structures; see fig. 3a-3b above and the front guide elements are closed by the front end boundary in manner analogous to instant figure, where there is a gap between the front guide elements and the front end boundary with a vertically, relative to ann. figs 3a-3b, above, corresponding strip section below it; examiner notes that corresponding can be interpreted more broadly; flexible as explained in [0020-0021] in dirt trapping elements are soft and flexible), each opening of a plurality of openings left by the front guide elements aligned with a corresponding front opening in the front-end boundary (the plurality of openings aligned as shown in ann. fig. 3a-3b above, corresponding can be interpreted as vertically [relative to ann. figs. 3a-3b] corresponding, or more broadly) and being configured to allow shifting of the guided dirt directly towards the corresponding adjacent front openings (see arrangement of air flow arrow in fig. 3b; [0049] - “With an arrangement of several rows offset from each other, the dirt particles at the front row are deflected and moved towards the center of nozzle 1”) , a width of the plurality of openings left by the front guide elements is equal to or exceeds a width of the front openings (see ann. fig. 3b, above, at right), wherein both the front-end boundary and the front guide elements are configured to reach a surface to be cleaned in use of the vacuum cleaner nozzle on such a surface (dirt trapping elements engage surface in [0020]).
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach (DE 102008021353 A1), and further in view of Voorhorst (US Pub. 20160213215 A1, cited in the IDS dated 06/21/2021)
With respect to claim 2, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the front-end boundary has between 4 and 6 front openings, and wherein an aperture of the front openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2.
Voorhorst, in the same field of endeavor, as related to vacuum cleaners provides evidence that the openings between each flap (analogous to the openings between formed by a front/rear end boundary) has an effect on how large particles can pass ([0061-0062]), and that the width of each flap is substantially equal to the width of the openings, and that the number of flaps (resulting in a difference in the number of openings, as the openings are provided between flaps) can vary. One skilled in the art would understand that the number of flaps on each head depends on a dimension of the flaps, and that the dimensions of the flaps have an effect on how large of an object can pass though.
The applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the claimed range of 4-6 front openings, only stating that “Similar to what has been noted in respect of the front-end boundary, it is preferred if the [front/rear]- end boundary has between 4 and 6 openings and/or if an aperture of the [front/rear] openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2.” (instant spec. page 5 lines 1-6, 15-18).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range is shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical.
Having demonstrated that the number of openings is a result effective variable, and given the lack of criticality of the claimed variable, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to have selected the number of openings, in the front/rear end boundary of Bach, as a matter of routine optimization, including where the number of openings is the claimed in the claimed range of 4-6 openings. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the modification.
As previously explained, the specific dimensions of the openings are result-effective variables as it affects how large of an object may pass through.
The applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the dimensions of the apertures, only stating that “an aperture of the [front/rear] openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2.” (instant spec. page 5 lines 1-7, 15-18;).
Having demonstrated that the dimensions of the front/rear openings are result effective variables, and given the lack of criticality of the claimed variable, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to have selected a size of the opening of the front/rear end boundary of Bach, as modified, as a matter of routine optimization, including a dimension where the front/rear openings (specifically an aperture of the front openings) are 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the modification.
In the alternative, MPEP 2144.04 provides that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious of a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an aperture of the front/rear openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2”
With respect to claim 9, Bach, discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the rear-end boundary has between 4 and 6 rear openings, and wherein an aperture of the rear openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2.
Voorhorst in the same field of endeavor, as related to vacuum cleaners provides evidence that the openings between each flap (analogous to the openings between formed by a front/rear end boundary) has an effect on how large particles can pass ([0061-0062]), and that the width of each flap is substantially equal to the width of the openings, and that the number of flaps (resulting in a difference in the number of openings, as the openings are provided between flaps) can vary. One skilled in the art would understand that the number of flaps on each head depends on a dimension of the flaps, and that the dimensions of the flaps have an effect on how large of an object can pass though.
The applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the claimed range of 4-6 front openings, only stating that “Similar to what has been noted in respect of the front-end boundary, it is preferred if the [front/rear]- end boundary has between 4 and 6 openings and/or if an aperture of the [front/rear] openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2.” (instant spec. page 5 lines 1-6, 15-18).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range is shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical.
Having demonstrated that the number of openings is a result effective variable, and given the lack of criticality of the claimed variable, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to have selected the number of openings, in the front/rear end boundary of Bach, as an matter of routine optimization, including where the number of openings is the claimed in the claimed range of 4-6 openings. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the modification.
As previously explained, the specific dimensions of the openings are result-effective variables as it affects how large of an object may pass through.
The applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the dimensions of the apertures, only stating that “an aperture of the [front/rear] openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2.” (instant spec. page 5 lines 1-7, 15-18;).
Having demonstrated that the dimensions of the front/rear openings are result effective variables, and given the lack of criticality of the claimed variable, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to have selected a size of the opening of the front/rear end boundary of Bach, as modified, as a matter of routine optimization, including a dimension where the front/rear openings (specifically an aperture of the front openings) are 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the modification.
In the alternative, MPEP 2144.04 provides that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious of a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an aperture of the front/rear openings is between 5x5 mm2 and 7x7 mm2”
Claim(s) 3, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach (DE 102008021353 A1) and further in view of Erickson (US Pat. 5123141 A)
With respect to claim 3, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the nozzle is supported by the front-end boundary (front end boundary elements engage surface to be cleaned as in [0020], referencing the dirt trap elements which, as mapped in the rejection of claim 1 above, includes elements that form the front end boundary), however does not explicitly teach wheels at a rear end of the vacuum cleaner nozzle.
Erickson, in the same field of endeavor, as related to vacuum cleaners, teaches wheels at a rear end of an nozzle (64, fig. 2; col 4 lines 8-26 describe layout). Erickson teaches these wheels allow pivotal movement and provide support during downward pressing of the nozzle (col 4 lines 26-39).
It would have been obvious of a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Bach, and have incorporated wheels at a rear end of the nozzle, as taught by Erickson, for the purpose of allowing pivotal movement and providing support.
With respect to claim 13, Bach discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and further discloses wherein the vacuum cleaner nozzle is supported by the front-end boundary (front end boundary elements engage surface to be cleaned as in [0020], referencing the dirt trap elements which, as mapped in the rejection of claim 1 above, includes elements that form the front-end boundary), however does not explicitly teach wheels at a rear end of the vacuum cleaner nozzle.
Erickson, in the same field of endeavor, as related to vacuum cleaners, teaches wheels at a rear end of a nozzle (64, fig. 2; col 4 lines 8-26 describe layout). Erickson teaches these wheels allow pivotal movement and provide support during downward pressing of the nozzle (col 4 lines 26-39).
It would have been obvious of a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Bach, and have incorporated wheels at a rear end of the nozzle, as taught by Erickson, for the purpose of allowing pivotal movement and providing support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues (response page 5-6) that Bach does not disclose an arrangement with a front-end boundary having a plurality of strip sections, the strip sections corresponding to that of the triangular guide elements and that close off each triangular front guide elements. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Bach, as shown in ann. figs. 3a-3b, above, a plurality of strip sections (which are otherwise not defined in shape or orientation), and because the instant disclosure shows how being “closed off” does not mean to fully close of as to leave no gaps, as there is a gap between the instant front end boundary strips and the guide elements. The examiner notes that correspond is a relatively broad term, and the claim does not describe the nature of correspondence.
The applicant further argues (response page 6-7), that Bach does not disclose the limitation of each opening of a plurality of openings left by the front guide elements aligned with a corresponding front opening in the front-end boundary, and the examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as previously noted, corresponding can be broadly interpreted, and in Bach, the openings align and are vertically correspond.
Thirdly, the applicant argues (response page 7), that Bach is deficient because "an air inlet area having a front-end boundary formed by a brush strip having a plurality of strip sections, the front-end...vacuum cleaner nozzle; and front guide elements having triangular structures, each triangular structure closed off by a corresponding strip section of the front-end boundary for guiding dirt towards the front openings, each opening of a plurality of openings left by the front guide elements aligned with a corresponding front opening in the front-end boundary" is not found in Bach, however the applicant did not particularly point out what aspects are missing from the reference, and the examiner takes the position that all the limitations of the claim are addressed in the rejection of the claim.
As with the last response to arguments dated 09/03/2025 examiner notes, with respect to the differences between the instant figure and disclose and Bach, that the instant disclosure shows a front-end boundary formed of a bristle strip, with discrete linear segments of the brush strip that are colinear with each other, and that there are multiple front guide elements, chevron shaped, with a pointed end at approximately a center of linear segments of each of the discrete linear segments, the guide elements having the same regular spacing as the linear segments of the bristle strip of the front-end boundary. This similarly applies to the rear end boundary, and rear guide elements. Submitted amendments to the claim language will require further search and consideration, based on the actual language of the submitted amendment, in context of the rest of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (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, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723