DETAILED ACTION
CLEANER HEAD FOR A VACCUM CLEANER
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
The amendment filed 07-21-2026 has been entered. Claims 1,2,4-13 and 16-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07-21-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant the claimed cleaner head in the independent claim, specifically teaching reference Conrad does not supply the claimed second outlet/ duct architecture and specifically teaching reference Eriksson does not supply the claimed agitator engaging member.
Applicant argues that prior art Conrad is not structurally or functionally analogous to the claimed arrangement, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Similar to the claimed cleaner head, Conrad discloses a vacuum cleaner head that collects dirt and debris using a cleaner head that has multiple pathways. Conrad discloses a cleaning head for surface cleaning apparatus that has multiple air outlets (see abstract) where there is a second air outlet (126, figure 3) spaced from first air outlet (150, figure 5) located of the cleaning head (100, figure 1-2), a duct (124,122d, figures 3-4) defining a second airflow path (figure 3) for conveying air from the second air outlet (126, figure 3) to (see 116, figure 3) an air inlet port (120 figure 5) located in the neck between the first air outlet (150, figure 5) and an outlet of the cleaner head (118, figures 3-4).
Conrad is not relied on to teach a conical agitator, that feature is seen and noted within the rejection to be disclosed by the prior art base reference Thomas. Further, Conrad discloses that the additional pathways are not limited to parallel struct passages but can include pathways extending at an angle (see col 7 lines 40-col 8 lines 10).
Additionally, applicant argues that prior art Eriksson discloses an user actuated blade, and is unlike the claimed agitator engaging member which is always present (not user-actuated), presses wrapped debris, cooperates with conical shape and geometry.
Examiner respectfully indicates that the claim does not require agitator engaging member to not be user actuated, just operable to press debris that has become wrapped around the conical agitator against the conical agitator for directing.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., agitator engaging member to not be user actuated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, Eriksson discloses that the blade can held in place against the agitator (see col 5 lines 1-15) or not even require user activation (see col 4 lines 35-40), and that the blade can used with different agitators with different profiles (see col 6 lines 15-55, see claim 1) to efficiently remove entangled articles by cooperating with the agitator’s geometry (see col 3 lines 1-60 and col 4 lines 60 and col 7 lines 40 – col 9 lines 65 ).
In response to applicant’s argument that prior art combination is improper, and a case of obviousness has not been properly provided by the Office. In this case, prior art Thomas discloses all limitations stated in the independent claim expect (see rejection below), but fails specifically to teach a secondary pathway and an agitator engaging member. Prior art Conrad discloses a vacuum cleaner head where adding (abstract, col 2 lines 23-col 6 lines 48). A person with ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed integrated arrangement because both prior art Conrad and Eriksson, teach that incorporating the claimed structure helps maintain the cleaning performance of a cleaning head.
Applicant argues that prior art Lee does not supply the claimed second outlet/duct architecture, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lee discloses a cleaning head (21, figure 3) for surface cleaning apparatus multiple air outlets (figure 3) where there is a second air outlet (see annotated figure below) spaced from first air outlet (see annotated figure below) located of the cleaning head, a duct (47, figures 2 and 3) defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second air outlet to an air inlet port located in the neck between the first air outlet and an outlet ( figure 3; 41) of the cleaner head agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (pages 1-3 of npl; figure 3).
In response to applicant's argument that prior art Roden is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, prior art Roden discloses a vacuum cleaner with
In response to applicant’s argument that curved duct through 90 degrees is not merely design choice, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Applicant has not assigned any criticality to the recitation claimed. The applicant describes only generally “the duct is preferably curved to minimize turbulence”. Prior art Steiner, Embree, and Payne all disclose curved ducts that can pull air. Changing the form or shape of something that lacks criticality to its specific construction is an obvious design choice.
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 (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 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) 1-2,4-15,17,20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643B2).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a housing (402, figure 7) defining a suction cavity (area surrounding the agitator see figure 7; abstract and pages 2-4) and comprising a cleaner head suction opening (“dirty air inlet”; page 14) through which debris enters the suction cavity, a first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14), a neck (see annotated figure below) defining a first airflow path for conveying air from the first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14) to an exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see annotated figure below), and an air inlet port (see annotated figure below) that opens in the neck at a location between the first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14) and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see annotated figure below); a conical agitator (600, figure 9) mounted in the suction cavity in a cantilevered manner for rotation relative thereto (“A cleaner head is also envisaged wherein the brushbar 600 is cantilevered within the cleaner head, such that the cleaner head resembles the cleaner head 400”), the conical agitator having a conical shape (figure 9) and comprising a core (figure 9) that is conical in shape and that has a first, free end (see annotated figure 9) located and a second end supported relative to the suction cavity in the cantilevered manner, the second end having a larger diameter than the first free end (see annotated figure 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
1015
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thomas fails to teach a second cleaner head air outlet spaced from the first cleaner head air outlet ,and a duct defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet to free end located adjacent to the second cleaner head air outlet an agitator engaging member operable to press debris that has become wrapped around the conical agitator against the conical agitator for directing, together with the conical shape of the conical agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet.
Conrad discloses a cleaning head for surface cleaning apparatus multiple air outlets (see abstract) where there is a second air outlet (126, figure 3) spaced from first air outlet (150, figure 5) located of the cleaning head (100, figure 1-2), a duct (124,122d, figures 3-4) defining a second airflow path (figure 3) for conveying air from the second air outlet (126, figure 3) to (see 116, figure 3) an air inlet port (120 figure 5) located in the neck between the first air outlet (150, figure 5) and an outlet of the cleaner head (118, figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Conrad so there is a second air outlet spaced from the first air outlet and a duct defining a second airflow path for. This modification would help ensure that the vacuum cleaner can continue to operate if a clog caused by entrained material occurs (see Conrad col 2 lines 45-60; col 3 lines 64- 67; col 7 lines 7-11).
Further, modified Thomas would teach first, free end (see annotated figure 9 above) located adjacent to the second air outlet to the second air outlet (see Conrad 126, figure 3)
Eriksson teaches a cleaning device (abstract) that has an agitator (agitator 100, figures 1-5) and an agitator engaging member (blade 202, figures 2a-2b) operable to press any debris against the agitator any debris which has become wrapped around the agitator (abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s engaging member. This modification would help with reducing debris and hair build up on an agitator.
Further, modified Thomas would teach together with the conical shape of the agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet. (see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48; Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar); and second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet (see Conrad 126; see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48), wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas pages 7 and 14 of NPL)
Regarding claim 2, modified Thomas teaches the core (see figure 9; abstract; The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar) has an external surface that is inclined at a cone angle to the longitudinal axis of the conical agitator (600, figure 9) , and wherein the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b; blade extends to be aligned and parallel with agitator surface; see col 4 lines 20-30 ) extends in a direction that is inclined at the cone angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the conical agitator (see figure 9; abstract; The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar).
Regarding claim 4, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b) extends substantially along an entire length of the conical agitator (see Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thomas teaches the engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see Eriksson col 4 lines 50-59 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208) is biased towards the conical agitator.
Regarding claim 6, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member comprises a resilient member that is biased towards the conical agitator (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material .)
Regarding claim 7, modified Thomas teaches the resilient member comprises a strip of resilient material (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 8, modified Thomas teaches the strip of resilient member has a substantially uniform width (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 9, modified Thomas teaches the housing defining the suction cavity (see area surrounding the agitator see figure 7; abstract) comprises a substantially conical housing of the cleaner head (due to the shape of the brushbar 600, figure 9) , and the agitator engaging member is mounted on the substantially conical housing. (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material)
Regarding claim 10, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 col 5 lines 49-65 col 6 lines 45-568 teaches blade dimensions and geometry can change ) is located opposite to the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas “cleaner head has a dirty air inlet”; see Thomas annotated above) through which the debris enters the cleaner head.
Regarding claim 11, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 col 5 lines 49-65 col 6 lines 45-568 teaches blade dimensions and geometry can change) is located adjacent to the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas “cleaner head has a dirty air inlet”; see Thomas annotated above) through which debris enters the cleaner head.
Regarding claim 12, modified Thomas teaches the core of the conical agitator comprises upstanding helical ridges, and the conical agitator comprises a row of bristles located between the helical ridges. (see Thomas the wall may comprise a region of increased distance from a central longitudinal axis of the agitator, for example increased radial distance, relative to the main body. The wall may comprise a projection or ridge formed on the main body, for example integrally formed on the main body. The wall may project radially outwardly from the main body of the agitator.”)
Regarding claim 13, modified Thomas teaches the engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material) is arranged to press the debris that has become wrapped debris around the conical agitator against at least the row of bristles of the conical agitator.
Regarding claim 14, modified Thomas teaches a drive (see Thomas discloses The brushbar rotates within the cleaner head 100, for example as a result of being driven by a motor housed within the main body 12,) operable to rotate the conical agitator (600, figure 9), and wherein the conical agitator (see annotated figure 9; Conrad discloses brushbar 600 is cantilevered within the cleaner head, such that the cleaner head resembles the cleaner head, 400 in figure 7) is connected to the drive at or towards the second end ( see Thomas annotated figure above) of the agitator (600, figure 9).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas as modified in claim 1 teaches all limitations stated above and conical agitator (600, figure 9) but fails to teach the drive comprises a motor located externally of the agitator, and a belt connecting the agitator to the motor.
Eriksson teaches a cleaner (abstract) with a motor (motor 114, figure 1) where located externally of the agitator (agitator 100, figure 1), and a belt (belt 116, figure 1) connecting the agitator to the motor (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s motor and belt configuration. This modification would help with driving the agitator. (see Eriksson’s col 3 lines 35-50)
Regarding claim 17, modified Thomas teaches wherein the duct (see Conrad discloses; 122 124, figure 3) extends externally of the housing from the second cleaner head air outlet (see Conrad;see annotated figure 3) to the neck (see Thomas annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Thomas teaches the duct (see conrad 122,124, figure 3) defines the second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet (see Conrad126, figure 3) to (see Conrad 116, figure 3) an air inlet port that opens in the neck (see Conrad 120, figure 5) at the location between the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14 and Conrad 150, figure 5) and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head to merge in the neck of the housing the air conveyed via the second airflow path with the air conveyed via the first airflow path before being emitted from the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see Conrad figure 5).
Regarding claim 21, modified Thomas teaches the agitator defines a longitudinal axis inclined at an acute angle relative to a plane containing the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas figure 9, least a portion of the agitator may be inclined toward the debris collection channel. This may be beneficial as it may promote migration of debris toward the debris collection channel. At least a portion of the agitator may be inclined toward the debris collection channel whilst at least a portion of the agitator is configured to lie parallel to a surface to be cleaned in use. This may be beneficial as it may ensure that debris is migrated along the agitator without interfering with the normal agitating function of the agitator in use. The at least a portion of the agitator may comprise an angle of inclination of at least 5°, or at least 10°, relative to a base of the agitator. The agitator may be substantially conical in form.); and the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) and the second cleaner head air outlet are mutually spaced in a direction extending substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the agitator (see Thomas figure 4, and see conrad 126, figure 3).
Claim(s) 1-2,4-15,17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Lee (KR100386256B12) and Eriksson (US8601643B2).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a housing (402, figure 7) defining a suction cavity (area surrounding the agitator see figure 7; abstract and pages 2-4) and comprising a cleaner head suction opening (“dirty air inlet”; page 14) through which debris enters the suction cavity, a first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14), a neck (see annotated figure below) defining a first airflow path for conveying air from the first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14) to an exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see annotated figure below), and an air inlet port (see annotated figure below) that opens in the neck at a location between the first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14) and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see annotated figure below); a conical agitator (600, figure 9) mounted in the suction cavity in a cantilevered manner for rotation relative thereto (“A cleaner head is also envisaged wherein the brushbar 600 is cantilevered within the cleaner head, such that the cleaner head resembles the cleaner head 400”), the conical agitator having a conical shape (figure 9) and comprising a core (figure 9) that is conical in shape and that has a first, free end (see annotated figure 9) located and a second end supported relative to the suction cavity in the cantilevered manner, the second end having a larger diameter than the first free end (see annotated figure 9).
PNG
media_image3.png
1118
1074
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
412
855
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thomas fails to teach a second cleaner head air outlet spaced from the first cleaner head air outlet ,and a duct defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet to free end located adjacent to the second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet an agitator engaging member operable to press debris that has become wrapped around the conical agitator against the conical agitator for directing, together with the conical shape of the conical agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet,
wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet.
Lee discloses a cleaning head (21, figure 3) for surface cleaning apparatus multiple air outlets (figure 3) where there is a second air outlet (see annotated figure below) spaced from first air outlet (see annotated figure below) located of the cleaning head, a duct (47, figures 2 and 3) defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second air outlet to an air inlet port located in the neck between the first air outlet and an outlet ( figure 3; 41) of the cleaner head agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (pages 1-3 of npl; figure 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
663
835
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Lee so there is a second air outlet spaced from the first air outlet and a duct defining a second airflow path for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet. This modification would help improve the efficiency of the vacuum cleaner . (see abstract and page 1 of npl of Lee).
Further, modified Thomas would teach first, free end (see annotated figure 9 above) located adjacent to the second air outlet to the second air outlet (see Lee annotated figure above)
Eriksson teaches a cleaning device (abstract) that has an agitator (agitator 100, figures 1-5) and an agitator engaging member (blade 202, figures 2a-2b) operable to press any debris against the agitator any debris which has become wrapped around the agitator (abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s engaging member. This modification would help with reducing debris and hair build up on an agitator.
Further, modified Thomas would teach together with the conical shape of the agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet. (see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48; Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar); and second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet (see Lee annotated figure above); see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48), wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas pages 7 and 14 of npl)
Regarding claim 2, modified Thomas teaches the core (see figure 9; abstract; The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar) has an external surface that is inclined at a cone angle to the longitudinal axis of the conical agitator (600, figure 9) , and wherein the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b; blade extends to be aligned and parallel with agitator surface; see col 4 lines 20-30 ) extends in a direction that is inclined at the cone angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the conical agitator (see figure 9; abstract; The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar).
Regarding claim 4, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b) extends substantially along an entire length of the conical agitator (see Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thomas teaches the engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see Eriksson col 4 lines 50-59 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208) is biased towards the conical agitator.
Regarding claim 6, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member comprises a resilient member that is biased towards the conical agitator (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material .)
Regarding claim 7, modified Thomas teaches the resilient member comprises a strip of resilient material (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 8, modified Thomas teaches the strip of resilient member has a substantially uniform width (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 9, modified Thomas teaches the housing defining the suction cavity (see area surrounding the agitator see figure 7; abstract) comprises a substantially conical housing of the cleaner head (due to the shape of the brushbar 600, figure 9) , and the agitator engaging member is mounted on the substantially conical housing. (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material)
Regarding claim 10, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 col 5 lines 49-65 col 6 lines 45-568 teaches blade dimensions and geometry can change ) is located opposite to the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas “cleaner head has a dirty air inlet”; see Thomas annotated above) through which the debris enters the cleaner head.
Regarding claim 11, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 col 5 lines 49-65 col 6 lines 45-568 teaches blade dimensions and geometry can change) is located adjacent to the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas “cleaner head has a dirty air inlet”; see Thomas annotated above) through which debris enters the cleaner head.
Regarding claim 12, modified Thomas teaches the core of the conical agitator comprises upstanding helical ridges, and the conical agitator comprises a row of bristles located between the helical ridges. (see Thomas the wall may comprise a region of increased distance from a central longitudinal axis of the agitator, for example increased radial distance, relative to the main body. The wall may comprise a projection or ridge formed on the main body, for example integrally formed on the main body. The wall may project radially outwardly from the main body of the agitator.”)
Regarding claim 13, modified Thomas teaches the engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material) is arranged to press the debris that has become wrapped debris around the conical agitator against at least the row of bristles of the conical agitator.
Regarding claim 14, modified Thomas teaches a drive (see Thomas discloses The brushbar rotates within the cleaner head 100, for example as a result of being driven by a motor housed within the main body 12,) operable to rotate the conical agitator (600, figure 9), and wherein the conical agitator (see annotated figure 9; Thomas discloses brushbar 600 is cantilevered within the cleaner head, such that the cleaner head resembles the cleaner head, 400 in figure 7) is connected to the drive at or towards the second end ( see Thomas annotated figure above) of the agitator (600, figure 9).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas as modified in claim 1 teaches all limitations stated above and conical agitator (600, figure 9) but fails to teach the drive comprises a motor located externally of the agitator, and a belt connecting the agitator to the motor.
Eriksson teaches a cleaner (abstract) with a motor (motor 114, figure 1) where located externally of the agitator (agitator 100, figure 1), and a belt (belt 116, figure 1) connecting the agitator to the motor (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s motor and belt configuration. This modification would help with driving the agitator. (see Eriksson’s col 3 lines 35-50)
Regarding claim 17, modified Thomas teaches wherein the duct (see Lee 47, figures 2 and 3) extends externally of the housing from the second cleaner head air outlet (see Lee annotated figure above) to the neck (see Thomas annotated figure above).
Regarding 18, modified Thomas teaches wherein the duct (see Lee 47, figures 2 and 3) is curved between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port.
Regarding claim 19, modified Thomas teaches all limitations stated above, and fails to teach the duct curves through 90° between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port; and the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port.
However, modified Thomas does disclose the duct that curves through an angle (see Lee 47, figures 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to further modify Thomas so that duct curves through 90° between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, wherein the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 20, modified Thomas teaches the duct (see Lee 47, figures 2 and 3) defines the second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet (see Lee annotated figure above 3) to (see Lee annotated figure above 3, see Lee figures 2-3) an air inlet port that opens in the neck (see Lee figures 3-4) at the location between the first cleaner head air outlet (see Lee figures 3-4; and annotated figure above) and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head to merge in the neck of the housing the air conveyed via the second airflow path with the air conveyed via the first airflow path before being emitted from the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see Lee, figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 21, modified Thomas teaches the agitator defines a longitudinal axis inclined at an acute angle relative to a plane containing the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas figure 9, least a portion of the agitator may be inclined toward the debris collection channel. This may be beneficial as it may promote migration of debris toward the debris collection channel. At least a portion of the agitator may be inclined toward the debris collection channel whilst at least a portion of the agitator is configured to lie parallel to a surface to be cleaned in use. This may be beneficial as it may ensure that debris is migrated along the agitator without interfering with the normal agitating function of the agitator in use. The at least a portion of the agitator may comprise an angle of inclination of at least 5°, or at least 10°, relative to a base of the agitator. The agitator may be substantially conical in form.); and the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) and the second cleaner head air outlet are mutually spaced in a direction extending substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the agitator (see Thomas figure 4, and see Lee annotated figure above and figures 2-3).
Claim(s) 1-2,4-15, 17,20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Roden (US4939808A) and Eriksson (US8601643B2).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a housing (402, figure 7) defining a suction cavity (area surrounding the agitator see figure 7; abstract and pages 2-4) and comprising a cleaner head suction opening (“dirty air inlet”; page 14) through which debris enters the suction cavity, a first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14), a neck (see annotated figure below) defining a first airflow path for conveying air from the first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14) to an exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see annotated figure below), and an air inlet port (see annotated figure below) that opens in the neck at a location between the first cleaner head air outlet (“dirty air outlet”; page 14) and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see annotated figure below); a conical agitator (600, figure 9) mounted in the suction cavity in a cantilevered manner for rotation relative thereto (“A cleaner head is also envisaged wherein the brushbar 600 is cantilevered within the cleaner head, such that the cleaner head resembles the cleaner head 400”), the conical agitator having a conical shape (figure 9) and comprising a core (figure 9) that is conical in shape and that has a first, free end (see annotated figure 9) located and a second end supported relative to the suction cavity in the cantilevered manner, the second end having a larger diameter than the first free end (see annotated figure 9).
Thomas fails to teach a second cleaner head air outlet spaced from the first cleaner head air outlet ,and a duct defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet to free end located adjacent to the second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet an agitator engaging member operable to press debris that has become wrapped around the conical agitator against the conical agitator for directing, together with the conical shape of the conical agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet,
wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet beinq located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet.
Roden teaches a cleaning head for surface cleaning apparatus (abstract) multiple air outlets ( see annotated figure below) where there is a second air outlet (29, figure 3) spaced from first air outlet located of the cleaning head a duct (col 3 lines 40-57) defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second air outlet to an air inlet port located in the neck between the first air outlet and an outlet of the cleaner head agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (see annotated figure below; col 3 lines 35-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Roden so there is a second air outlet spaced from the first air outlet and a duct defining a second airflow path for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet. This modification would help improve the efficiency of the vacuum cleaner. (col 1 lines 29- col 2 lines 60 of Roden)
Further, modified Thomas would teach first, free end (see annotated figure 9 above) located adjacent to the second air outlet to the second air outlet (see Roden annotated figure above)
Eriksson teaches a cleaning device (abstract) that has an agitator (agitator 100, figures 1-5) and an agitator engaging member (blade 202, figures 2a-2b) operable to press any debris against the agitator any debris which has become wrapped around the agitator (abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s engaging member. This modification would help with reducing debris and hair build up on an agitator.
Further, modified Thomas would teach together with the conical shape of the agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet. (see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48; Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar); and second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet (see Roden annotated figure above) see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48), wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas pages 7 and 14 of npl)
PNG
media_image6.png
1074
975
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Thomas teaches the core (see figure 9; abstract; The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar) has an external surface that is inclined at a cone angle to the longitudinal axis of the conical agitator (600, figure 9) , and wherein the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b; blade extends to be aligned and parallel with agitator surface; see col 4 lines 20-30 ) extends in a direction that is inclined at the cone angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the conical agitator (see figure 9; abstract; The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar).
Regarding claim 4, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b) extends substantially along an entire length of the conical agitator (see Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thomas teaches the engaging member (see Eriksson’s blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see Eriksson col 4 lines 50-59 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208) is biased towards the conical agitator.
Regarding claim 6, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member comprises a resilient member that is biased towards the conical agitator (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material .)
Regarding claim 7, modified Thomas teaches the resilient member comprises a strip of resilient material (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 8, modified Thomas teaches the strip of resilient member has a substantially uniform width (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 9, modified Thomas teaches the housing defining the suction cavity (see area surrounding the agitator see figure 7; abstract) comprises a substantially conical housing of the cleaner head (due to the shape of the brushbar 600, figure 9) , and the agitator engaging member is mounted on the substantially conical housing. (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material)
Regarding claim 10, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 col 5 lines 49-65 col 6 lines 45-568 teaches blade dimensions and geometry can change ) is located opposite to the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas “cleaner head has a dirty air inlet”; see Thomas annotated above) through which the debris enters the cleaner head.
Regarding claim 11, modified Thomas teaches the agitator engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 col 5 lines 49-65 col 6 lines 45-568 teaches blade dimensions and geometry can change) is located adjacent to the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas “cleaner head has a dirty air inlet”; see Thomas annotated above) through which debris enters the cleaner head.
Regarding claim 12, modified Thomas teaches the core of the conical agitator comprises upstanding helical ridges, and the conical agitator comprises a row of bristles located between the helical ridges. (see Thomas the wall may comprise a region of increased distance from a central longitudinal axis of the agitator, for example increased radial distance, relative to the main body. The wall may comprise a projection or ridge formed on the main body, for example integrally formed on the main body. The wall may project radially outwardly from the main body of the agitator.”)
Regarding claim 13, modified Thomas teaches the engaging member (see Eriksson blade 202, figures 2a-2b; see col 4 lines 50-59 and col 6 lines 45-55 teaches blade is biased due to springs 208 and the blade made from resilient material) is arranged to press the debris that has become wrapped debris around the conical agitator against at least the row of bristles of the conical agitator.
Regarding claim 14, modified Thomas teaches a drive (see Thomas discloses The brushbar rotates within the cleaner head 100, for example as a result of being driven by a motor housed within the main body 12,) operable to rotate the conical agitator (600, figure 9), and wherein the conical agitator (see annotated figure 9; Thomas discloses brushbar 600 is cantilevered within the cleaner head, such that the cleaner head resembles the cleaner head, 400 in figure 7) is connected to the drive at or towards the second end ( see Thomas annotated figure above) of the agitator (600, figure 9).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas as modified in claim 1 teaches all limitations stated above and conical agitator (600, figure 9) but fails to teach the drive comprises a motor located externally of the agitator, and a belt connecting the agitator to the motor.
Eriksson teaches a cleaner (abstract) with a motor (motor 114, figure 1) where located externally of the agitator (agitator 100, figure 1), and a belt (belt 116, figure 1) connecting the agitator to the motor (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s motor and belt configuration. This modification would help with driving the agitator. (see Eriksson’s col 3 lines 35-50)
Regarding claim 17, modified Thomas teaches wherein the duct (see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65) extends externally of the housing from the second cleaner head air outlet (see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65) to the neck (see Thomas annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Thomas teaches the duct ((see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65) defines the second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet (see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65) to (see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65) an air inlet port that opens in the neck (see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65) at the location between the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14 and (see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65) and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head to merge in the neck of the housing the air conveyed via the second airflow path with the air conveyed via the first airflow path before being emitted from the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head (see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65).
Regarding claim 21, modified Thomas teaches the agitator defines a longitudinal axis inclined at an acute angle relative to a plane containing the cleaner head suction opening (see Thomas figure 9, least a portion of the agitator may be inclined toward the debris collection channel. This may be beneficial as it may promote migration of debris toward the debris collection channel. At least a portion of the agitator may be inclined toward the debris collection channel whilst at least a portion of the agitator is configured to lie parallel to a surface to be cleaned in use. This may be beneficial as it may ensure that debris is migrated along the agitator without interfering with the normal agitating function of the agitator in use. The at least a portion of the agitator may comprise an angle of inclination of at least 5°, or at least 10°, relative to a base of the agitator. The agitator may be substantially conical in form.); and the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) and the second cleaner head air outlet are mutually spaced in a direction extending substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the agitator (see Thomas figure 4, and see Roden annotated figure above; col 3 lines 30-65).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643B2) further in view of Steiner (US20020124346)
Regarding claim 18, modified Thomas teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the duct is curved between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port.
However, Conrad does disclose that the duct (124, figures 1-13) can be formed in various different configurations (see Conrad col 7 lines 34-65)
Steiner teaches it is known have a suction nozzle (100, figures 1- 4) where the suction nozzle ducts are curved (165 and 166, figure 6).
Because Conrad discloses it is known to make adjustments to the duct, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person ordinary skill in the art to have the duct be curved between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 19, Thomas as modified in claim 18 teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach the duct curves through 90° between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port; and the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port.
Because modified Thomas is silent on the angle of curves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to use the teachings of Steiner to modify the structure of the duct to have any desired curve, including a that duct curves through 90° between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, wherein the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643B2) further in view of Embree (US20010054355A1)
Regarding claim 18, modified Thomas teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the duct is curved between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port.
However, Conrad does disclose that the duct (124, figures 1-13) can be formed in various different configurations (see Conrad col 7 lines 34-65)
Embree teaches it is known have a suction nozzle (100, figures 1- 4) where the suction nozzle ducts are curved (30, figures 1-6)
Because Conrad discloses it is known to make adjustments to the duct, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person ordinary skill in the art to have the duct be curved between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 19, Thomas as modified in claim 18 teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the duct curves through 90° between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port; and the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port.
Because modified Thomas is silent on the angle of curves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to use the teachings of Embree to try and modify the structure of the duct to have any desired curve, including a that duct curves through 90° between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, wherein the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643B2) further in view of Payne (US 6,039,817)
Regarding claim 18, modified Thomas teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the duct is curved between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port.
However, Conrad does disclose that the duct (124, figures 1-13) can be formed in various different configurations (see Conrad col 7 lines 34-65)
Payne teaches it is known have a suction nozzle (12, figures 1- 4) where the suction nozzle ducts are curved (24, figures 1-2)
Because Conrad discloses it is known to make adjustments to the duct, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person ordinary skill in the art to have the duct be curved between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 19, Thomas as modified in claim 18 teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the duct curves through 90° between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port; and the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port.
Because modified Thomas is silent on the angle of curves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to use the teachings of Payne to try and modify the structure of the duct to have any desired curve, including a that duct curves through 90° between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, wherein the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643B2) further in view of Rench (US 5,077,862)
Regarding claim 18, modified Thomas teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the duct is curved between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port.
However, Conrad does disclose that the duct (124, figures 1-13) can be formed in various different configurations (see Conrad col 7 lines 34-65)
Rench teaches it is known have a suction nozzle (12, figures 1- 4) where the suction nozzle ducts are curved (51, figures 1-3a)
Because Conrad discloses it is known to make adjustments to the duct, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person ordinary skill in the art to have the duct be curved between the second air outlet and the air inlet port, since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 19, Thomas as modified in claim 18 teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the duct curves through 90° between the second air outlet and the air inlet port; and second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port.
Because modified Thomas is silent on the angle of curves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to use the teachings of Rench to try and modify the structure of the duct to have any desired curve, including a that duct curves through 90° between the second cleaner head air outlet and the air inlet port, wherein the second airflow path extends away from the suction cavity in parallel to a portion of the first airflow path located upstream from the air inlet port since it has been held a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04) Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB2569313B) in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643B2) further in view of Iles (US 20120198644 A1)
Regarding claim 3, modified Thomas teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the cleaner head comprises a sole plate in which the opening is formed, and wherein, in use, the lowermost portion of the external surface of the core is parallel to the sole plate.
Illes teaches a cleaner head that includes a sole plate (26, figures 1-6;) which the opening (36, figures 1-6) is formed, and wherein, in use, the lowermost portion of the external surface of the agitator (60, figures 1-6) is parallel to the sole plate (26, figures 1-6;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Illes’s sole plate . This modification would help with agitating fibers of a carpetered floor. (see Illes’s para 0038)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2,4-13,16-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1,4-5 of U.S. Patent No. US12376718B2 in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because are broader in at least one aspect and recite additional features not claimed in the patent's claims.
Patent US12376718B2
Claims 1,4-5
Application 17/612,838
Claim 1
1. A cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner, the cleaner head comprising:
a suction cavity comprising an opening extending from a first end wall to a second end wall opposite the first end wall of the suction cavity through which debris enters the cleaner head, and an air outlet; and
an agitator mounted in the suction cavity in a cantilevered manner for rotation relative thereto, the agitator being conical in shape and extending from the first end wall to the second end wall of the suction cavity, the agitator comprising a first, free end located adjacent to the first end wall of the suction cavity, and a second end located adjacent to the second end wall of the suction cavity, the second end of the agitator has a larger diameter than the first end of the agitator;
wherein the air outlet is located adjacent the free end of the agitator and adjacent to the first end wall of the suction cavity so that, in a direction extending along a longitudinal axis of the agitator extending from the first end wall to the second end of the agitator, at least a portion of the air outlet is aligned with the free end of the agitator, the free end being a vertex of the agitator.
5. a neck which is connectable to a vacuum cleaner, and wherein the neck comprises an outlet of the cleaner head.
6. wherein the cleaner head defines an airflow path extending downstream of the suction cavity from the air outlet
towards the outlet of the cleaner head.
A cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner, the cleaner head comprising: a housing defining a suction cavity and comprising a cleaner head suction opening through which debris enters the suction cavity, a first cleaner head air outlet, a second cleaner head air outlet spaced from the first cleaner head air outlet, a neck defining a first airflow path for conveying air from the first cleaner head air outlet to an exhaust outlet of the cleaner head, and a duct defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet to an air inlet port that opens in the neck at a location between the first cleaner head air outlet and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head; a conical agitator mounted in the suction cavity in a cantilevered manner for rotation relative thereto, the conical agitator having a conical shape and comprising a core that is conical in shape and that has a first, free end located adjacent to the second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet and a second end supported relative to the suction cavity in the cantilevered manner, the second end having a larger diameter than the first free end; and an agitator engaging member operable to press debris that has become wrapped around the conical agitator against the conical agitator for directing, together with the conical shape of the conical agitator, debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet; wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet.
Regarding the broadening aspect of application claims 1,4-5, the above comparison between the co-pending claim and the application claim highlights which elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claim. Thus, it is apparent, that the co-pending application claim 1 and includes features that are not in application claims 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited above, where applicant has been once granted a patent containing a claim for the specific of narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claims 1 is anticipated by co-pending application claims 1 and 4-5, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over co-pending application claims 1 and 4-5.
With respect to the additional features recited in application claims 1, co-pending application claim 1 and 4-5 fails to recite a second air outlet spaced from the first air outlet adjacent to the second air outlet, an agitator engaging member for pressing against the agitator any debris which has become wrapped around the agitator; with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet.
Conrad discloses a cleaning head for surface cleaning apparatus multiple air outlets (see abstract) where there is a second air outlet (126, figure 3) spaced from first air outlet (150, figure 5) located of the cleaning head (100, figure 1-2), a duct (124,122d, figures 3-4) defining a second airflow path (figure 3) for conveying air from the second air outlet (126, figure 3) to (see 116, figure 3) an air inlet port (120 figure 5) located in the neck between the first air outlet (150, figure 5) and an outlet of the cleaner head (118, figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Conrad so there is a second air outlet spaced from the first air outlet and a duct defining a second airflow path for. This modification would help ensure that the vacuum cleaner can continue to operate if a clog caused by entrained material occurs (see Conrad col 2 lines 45-60; col 3 lines 64- 67; col 7 lines 7-11).
Further, modified Thomas would teach first, free end (see annotated figure 9 above) located adjacent to the second air outlet to the second air outlet (see Conrad 126, figure 3)
Eriksson teaches a cleaning device (abstract) that has an agitator (agitator 100, figures 1-5) and an agitator engaging member (blade 202, figures 2a-2b) operable to press any debris against the agitator any debris which has become wrapped around the agitator (abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s engaging member. This modification would help with reducing debris and hair build up on an agitator.
Further, modified Thomas would teach together with the conical shape of the agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet. (see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48; Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar); and second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet (see Conrad 126; see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48), wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas pages 7 and 14 of NPL)
Regarding claims 2,4-13,16-21 see 35 U.SC. 103 rejections of 2,4-13,16-21 above.
Claims 1,18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,4-5 of U.S. Patent No. US12376718B2 in view of Conrad (US8621709B2) and Eriksson (US8601643) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because are broader in at least one aspect and recite additional features not claimed in the patent's claims. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because are broader in at least one aspect and recite additional features not claimed in the co-pending application claims.
Co-Pending Application 17/612,997
Claims 1 and 19-20
Application 17/612,838
Claims 1 and 14-15
1. A cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner, the cleaner head comprising: a suction cavity comprising an opening extending from a first end to a second end opposite the first end of the suction cavity through which debris enters the cleaner head, and an air outlet; and an agitator mounted in the suction cavity in a cantilevered manner for rotation relative thereto, the agitator being conical in shape and extending from the first end to the second end of the suction cavity, the agitator comprising a first, free end located adjacent to the first end of the suction cavity, and a second end located adjacent to the second end of the suction cavity, the second end of the agitator has a larger diameter than the first end of the agitator; wherein the air outlet is located adjacent the free end of the agitator and adjacent to the first end of the suction cavity, so that, in a direction extending along a longitudinal axis of the agitator extending from the first end wall to the second end of the agitator, at least a portion of the air outlet is aligned with the free end of the agitator, the free end being a vertex of the agitator.
18. comprising a drive for driving rotation of the agitator, and wherein the agitator is connected to the drive at or towards the second end of the agitator.
19. wherein the drive comprises a motor located externally of the agitator, and a belt connecting the agitator to the motor.
1. A cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner, the cleaner head comprising: a housing defining a suction cavity and comprising a cleaner head suction opening through which debris enters the suction cavity, a first cleaner head air outlet, a second cleaner head air outlet spaced from the first cleaner head air outlet, a neck defining a first airflow path for conveying air from the first cleaner head air outlet to an exhaust outlet of the cleaner head, and a duct defining a second airflow path for conveying air from the second cleaner head air outlet to an air inlet port that opens in the neck at a location between the first cleaner head air outlet and the exhaust outlet of the cleaner head; a conical agitator mounted in the suction cavity in a cantilevered manner for rotation relative thereto, the conical agitator having a conical shape and comprising a core that is conical in shape and that has a first, free end located adjacent to the second cleaner head air outlet and a second end supported relative to the suction cavity in the cantilevered manner, the second end having a larger diameter than the first free end; and an agitator engaging member operable to press debris that has become wrapped around the conical agitator against the conical agitator for directing, together with the conical shape of the conical agitator, debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet;
an agitator engaging member operable to press debris that has become wrapped around the conical agitator against the conical agitator for directing, together with the conical shape of the conical agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet.
14. comprising a drive for driving rotation of the agitator, and wherein the agitator is connected to the drive at or towards the second end of the agitator.
20. wherein the drive comprises a motor located externally of the agitator, and a belt connecting the agitator to the motor
Regarding the broadening aspect of application claims 1 and 14-15, the above comparison between the co-pending claim and the application claim highlights which elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claim. Thus, it is apparent, that the co-pending application claim 1 and 18-19 includes features that are not in application claims 1 and 14-15. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited above, where applicant has been once granted a patent containing a claim for the specific of narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claims 1 and 14-15 is anticipated by co-pending application claims 1 and 19-20, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 and 14-15 is obvious over co-pending application claims 1 and 19-20.
With respect to the additional features recited in application claims 1, co-pending application claim 1 and 5-6 fails to recite a second air outlet spaced from the first air outlet adjacent to the second air outlet, an agitator engaging member for pressing against the agitator any debris which has become wrapped around the agitator for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet.
Conrad discloses a cleaning head for surface cleaning apparatus multiple air outlets (see abstract) where there is a second air outlet (126, figure 3) spaced from first air outlet (150, figure 5) located of the cleaning head (100, figure 1-2), a duct (124,122d, figures 3-4) defining a second airflow path (figure 3) for conveying air from the second air outlet (126, figure 3) to (see 116, figure 3) an air inlet port (120 figure 5) located in the neck between the first air outlet (150, figure 5) and an outlet of the cleaner head (118, figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Conrad so there is a second air outlet spaced from the first air outlet and a duct defining a second airflow path for. This modification would help ensure that the vacuum cleaner can continue to operate if a clog caused by entrained material occurs (see Conrad col 2 lines 45-60; col 3 lines 64- 67; col 7 lines 7-11).
Further, modified Thomas would teach first, free end (see annotated figure 9 above) located adjacent to the second air outlet to the second air outlet (see Conrad 126, figure 3)
Eriksson teaches a cleaning device (abstract) that has an agitator (agitator 100, figures 1-5) and an agitator engaging member (blade 202, figures 2a-2b) operable to press any debris against the agitator any debris which has become wrapped around the agitator (abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas to include the teachings of Eriksson’s engaging member. This modification would help with reducing debris and hair build up on an agitator.
Further, modified Thomas would teach together with the conical shape of the agitator, the debris that has become wrapped around the agitator towards the first free end of the conical agitator for collection into the second cleaner head air outlet. (see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48; Thomas discloses The taper angle of the brushbar 600 may be greater than 5°, or indeed greater than 10°, and at least sufficient to guide debris along the brush bar); and second cleaner head air outlet for communicating debris that has been released from being wrapped on the agitator to the second cleaner head air outlet (see Conrad 126; see Eriksson abstract, col 4 lines 23-col 6 lines 48), wherein the conical agitator is mounted in the suction cavity relative to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas “dirty air outlet”; page 14) with the first cleaner head air outlet being located generally midway between the first and second ends of the core of the conical agitator for communicating dust and other detritus that has been agitated by the agitator to the first cleaner head air outlet (see Thomas pages 7 and 14 of NPL)
Regarding claim 3 see 35 U.SC. 103 rejections of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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 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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights