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 .
Examiner’s Comments
1. The examiner welcomes an interview to discuss the rejections of record and claim interpretations. Overall, the examiner recommends further defining what is required by the language “isolated space that is isolated from”. Currently, the term “isolated from” is being interpreted under BRI (Broadest Reasonable Interpretation) as meaning “separated from” or “set apart from”. This interpretation qualifies under BRI. Additionally, the examiner further recommends including how the isolated space is isolated from the outside because as interpreted under BRI, the current language is not requiring a lack of air flow between the isolated space and the outside of the suction nozzle, as argued. No new matter should be added. See below response to arguments for more details.
Claims 11, 13-19 and 21-30 have been examined herein. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11, 13-16, 19, 21-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey et al. (US PGPUB 20210307572), hereinafter Grey, in view of Wilkinson et al. (US PGPUB 20130196802), hereinafter Wilkinson, and further in view of Morgan (US Patent 8528166).
Regarding claim 11, Grey teaches a vacuum cleaner (10) comprising:
a suction nozzle configured to suction dust from a floor (the entire head 12); and
a main body (dirt collection chamber, 20) configured to receive the dust (dirt collection chamber, 20),
wherein the suction nozzle comprises:
a main housing (the cover of 12) that defines an inlet (48, inlet duct) configured to provide the dust to the main body (20),
a rotating brush (36) disposed in the main housing (12),
a lower housing (bottom surface of the suction nozzle; see Figs. 5 and 7) coupled to the main housing (12), and
a driver (16, motor) disposed in the main housing (12) and configured to rotate the rotating brush (36),
wherein the driver comprises:
a bracket (side 46; see Figs. 6-8) coupled to the main housing (12),
a motor (16) coupled to the bracket (46; “coupled to” is being construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification to mean “fastened together” or “joined for combined effect” such as linked together; see Merriam Webster dictionary; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coupled; last visited June 29, 2024; therefore, the motor (16) is construed to be fastened together or joined together for combined effect with the bracket (46) by virtue of both the motor (16) and the bracket (46) being commonly linked together by the main housing (12)) and spaced apart from the rotating brush (36), the motor (16) being configured to generate rotational force (16), and
a transmission (see Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070) configured to transfer the rotational force of the motor (16) to the rotating brush (36, see fig. 13 and [0070])),
wherein the lower housing and the main housing together define a suction space (the space where the brush roll (36) is located),
wherein the main housing (12), the lower housing, and the bracket together define an isolated space (the space enclosed by the housing, bracket and lower housing; see Figs. 6-8) that is isolated from an outside of the suction nozzle (the claim limitations “isolated from” is being construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim language to mean “separated from” or “set apart from;” the isolation space is enclosed by the housing, bracket and lower housing, and is therefore, construed by the Examiner to be isolated from an outside of the suction nozzle, even though the isolated space of Grey is not airtight), the motor (16) being disposed within the isolated space (see Fig. 6-8), and
wherein the bracket (46) is disposed between the motor and the rotating brush (36; see annotated fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grey is not construed by the examiner to explicitly teach that the isolated space is isolated from the suction space; wherein the main housing, the lower housing, and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space; as Grey does not specifically provide details of whether the compartment containing the motor is isolated from (“separated from” or “set apart from”) the suction space containing the brush roll.
However, Wilkinson teaches a cleaner head which includes a first housing portion 30, wherein the isolated space housing the motor 16 is isolated from the suction space (see annotated fig. 1 below, wherein Wilkinson teaches structure isolating (“separated from” or “set apart from”) the motor space from the suction space). Wilkinson teaches the first housing portion includes an adjustment mechanism 28 for ensuring proper tension of the transmission [0037].
PNG
media_image2.png
598
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grey to incorporate the teachings of Wilkinson to provide wherein the isolated space is isolated (“separated from” or “set apart from”) from the suction space. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Wilkinson’s structure including housing portion 30 for seating the transmission of Grey, wherein the housing portion is adjustable for ensuring proper tension (as taught by Wilkinson). Doing so would provide a properly tensioned transmission (paragraph 0006 of Wilkinson), which promotes longevity and lifetime of the transmission (paragraph 0006 of Wilkinson).
Grey, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the main housing, the lower housing, and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space.
However, Morgan teaches a vacuum cleaner with an airtight chamber within its base 102 sealed by a gasket situated between the base top and the base bottom with the motor assembly 240 located in the isolated airtight chamber in the base 102. See Morgan, Col. 9, lines 19-39 and Fig. 12.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Grey, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Morgan to provide wherein the chamber housing the motor of Grey is airtight. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the gasket teachings of Morgan to provide wherein the chamber housing the motor of Grey is airtight. Doing so would ensure that dust and debris does not accumulate on the motor, thereby promoting an extended lifetime of the motor.
In summary, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the main housing, the lower housing, and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space (As modified above, the space housing the motor of Grey is an airtight chamber via the incorporated gasket of Morgan. Therefore, the main housing, lower housing, and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space. Specifically, the incorporated gasket prevents dust from leaking from the suction space to the motor chamber).
Regarding claim 13, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the transmission comprises: a middle pulley (78 of Grey); a first belt (74 of Grey) spaced apart from the rotating brush (36 of Grey) and configured to transfer the rotational force of the motor (16 of Grey) to the middle pulley (78 of Grey); and a second belt (76 of Grey) configured to transfer rotational force of the middle pulley (78 of Grey) to the rotating brush (16 of Grey). See Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
Regarding claim 14, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the middle pulley (78 of Grey) comprises a first middle pulley (portion of middle pulley connected to the first belt 74; see Fig. 13 of Grey) and a second middle pulley (portion of middle pulley connected to the second belt 76 of Grey), the second middle pulley being configured to rotate together with the first middle pulley (fig. 13 of Grey), wherein the transmission further comprises a driving pulley (see Examiner annotated Fig. 13 of Grey) coupled to a shaft (see Examiner annotated Fig. 13 of Grey) of the motor (16 of Grey), and wherein the first belt (74 of Grey) is wound around the driving pulley and the first middle pulley. See Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
PNG
media_image3.png
486
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the transmission further comprises a driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 of Grey) rotatably mounted to the bracket (the driven pulley is indirectly rotatably mounted to the bracket), and wherein the second belt (76 of Grey) is spaced apart from the rotating brush and wound around the driven pulley and the second middle pulley. See Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
Regarding claim 16, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the transmission further comprises a first shaft member (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 of Grey) coupled to a shaft of the driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 of Grey) and configured to transfer rotational force of the driven pulley to the rotating brush (36 of Grey). See Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
Regarding claim 19, Grey teaches a vacuum cleaner comprising:
a suction nozzle configured to suction dust from a floor (the entire head 12); and
a main body configured to receive the dust (dirt collection chamber, 20),
wherein the suction nozzle comprises:
a housing (12) that defines an inlet (48, inlet duct) configured to provide the dust to the main body (20),
a rotating brush (36) rotatably disposed at a front portion of the housing relative to the inlet (48; see Fig. 6), and
a driver (16) configured to rotate the rotating brush (36),
wherein the driver comprises:
a bracket (side 46; see Figs. 6-8) coupled to the housing,
a motor (16) coupled to the bracket (46; “coupled to” is being construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification to mean “fastened together” or “joined for combined effect” such as linked together; see Merriam Webster dictionary; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coupled; last visited June 29, 2024; therefore, the motor (16) is construed to be fastened together or joined together for combined effect with the bracket (46) by virtue of both the motor (16) and the bracket (46) being commonly linked together by the main housing (12)) and disposed rearward relative to the rotating brush (36; see Fig. 6), the motor comprising a motor shaft (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above) that extends parallel to a rotational axis of the rotating brush (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above), and
a transmission (see Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070) configured to transfer rotational force of the motor (16) to the rotating brush (36),
wherein the housing defines a suction space between the rotating brush and the inlet (the space between the rotating brush 36 and the inlet 48),
wherein the housing and the bracket define an isolated space (the space enclosed by the housing and bracket; see Figs. 6-8) that is isolated from an outside of the suction nozzle (the claim limitations “isolated from” is being construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim language to mean “separated from” or “set apart from;” the isolation space is enclosed by the housing, bracket and lower housing, and is therefore, construed by the Examiner to be isolated from an outside of the suction nozzle, even though the isolated space of Grey is not airtight), the isolated space accommodating the motor (16) therein (see Fig. 6-8), and
wherein the bracket (46) is disposed between the motor and the rotating brush (36; see annotated fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grey is not construed by the examiner to explicitly teach that the isolated space is isolated from the suction space; wherein the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space; as Grey does not specifically provide details of whether the compartment containing the motor is isolated from (“separated from” or “set apart from”) the suction space containing the brush roll.
However, Wilkinson teaches a cleaner head which includes a first housing portion 30, wherein the isolated space housing the motor 16 is isolated from the suction space (see annotated fig. 1 below, wherein Wilkinson teaches structure isolating (“separated from” or “set apart from”) the motor space from the suction space). Wilkinson teaches the first housing portion includes an adjustment mechanism 28 for ensuring proper tension of the transmission [0037].
PNG
media_image2.png
598
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grey to incorporate the teachings of Wilkinson to provide wherein the isolated space is isolated (“separated from” or “set apart from”) from the suction space. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Wilkinson’s structure including housing portion 30 for seating the transmission of Grey, wherein the housing portion is adjustable for ensuring proper tension (as taught by Wilkinson). Doing so would provide a properly tensioned transmission (paragraph 0006 of Wilkinson), which promotes longevity and lifetime of the transmission (paragraph 0006 of Wilkinson).
Grey, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space.
However, Morgan teaches a vacuum cleaner with an airtight chamber within its base 102 sealed by a gasket situated between the base top and the base bottom with the motor assembly 240 located in the isolated airtight chamber in the base 102. See Morgan, Col. 9, lines 19-39 and Fig. 12.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Grey, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Morgan to provide wherein the chamber housing the motor of Grey is airtight. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the gasket teachings of Morgan to provide wherein the chamber housing the motor of Grey is airtight. Doing so would ensure that dust and debris does not accumulate on the motor, thereby promoting an extended lifetime of the motor.
In summary, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space (As modified above, the space housing the motor of Grey is an airtight chamber via the incorporated gasket of Morgan. Therefore, the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space. Specifically, the incorporated gasket prevents dust from leaking from the suction space to the motor chamber).
Regarding claim 21, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the transmission comprises a plurality of belts (74 and 76) configured to transfer the rotational force of the motor (16) to the rotating brush (36). See Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
Regarding claim 22, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the transmission further comprises: a driving pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) coupled to the motor shaft (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey); a driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) rotatably mounted to the bracket (the driven pulley is indirectly rotatably mounted to the bracket) and disposed forward relative to the driving pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey); and a middle pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) disposed between the driving pulley and the driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey), and wherein the plurality of belts (74 and 76) are configured to transfer the rotational force of the motor (16) from the driving pulley to the driven pulley through the middle pulley. See Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
Regarding claim 23, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 22. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the plurality of belts comprise: a first belt (74) disposed at a side of the rotating brush (36) and configured to transfer the rotational force of the motor (16) from the driving pulley to the middle pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey); and a second belt (76) disposed at the side of the rotating brush (36) and configured to transfer rotational force of the middle pulley to the driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey). See Examiner Annotated Fig. 13, and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
Regarding claim 24, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 23. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the middle pulley (78 of Grey) comprises a first middle pulley (portion of middle pulley connected to the first belt 74; see Fig. 13 of Grey) and a second middle pulley (portion of middle pulley connected to the second belt 76 of Grey), the second middle pulley being configured to rotate together with the first middle pulley (fig. 13 of Grey), wherein the first belt is wound around the driving pulley and the first middle pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey), and wherein the second belt is wound around the driven pulley and the second middle pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey).
Regarding claim 25, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 22. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the transmission further comprises a first shaft member (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) coupled to a shaft of the driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) and configured to transfer rotational force of the driven pulley to the rotating brush (36 of Grey). See Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070 of Grey.
Regarding claim 27, Grey teaches a vacuum cleaner comprising:
a suction nozzle configured to suction dust from a floor (the entire head 12); and
a main body (dirt collection chamber, 20) configured to receive the dust (dirt collection chamber, 20),
wherein the suction nozzle comprises:
a housing (12) that defines an inlet (48) configured to provide the dust to the main body (20),
a rotating brush (36) disposed in the housing (12),
a driver (16, motor) disposed in the housing (12) and configured to rotate the rotating brush (36), and
a detachable cover (70) detachably coupled to the housing and configured to accommodate at least a portion of the rotating brush (36), and
wherein the driver (16) comprises:
a bracket (46) coupled to the housing (12),
a motor (16) coupled to the bracket (46; “coupled to” is being construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification to mean “fastened together” or “joined for combined effect” such as linked together; see Merriam Webster dictionary; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coupled; last visited June 29, 2024; therefore, the motor (16) is construed to be fastened together or joined together for combined effect with the bracket (46) by virtue of both the motor (16) and the bracket (46) being commonly linked together by the main housing (12)) and disposed rearward relative to the rotating brush (fig. 6), the motor comprising a motor shaft that is parallel to a rotational axis of the rotating brush (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 of Grey), and
a transmission (see Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070) configured to transfer rotational force of the motor to the rotating brush (see Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0070),
wherein the housing defines a suction space (space between brush 36 and inlet 48) between the rotating brush (36) and the inlet (48),
wherein the housing and the bracket define an isolated space (the space enclosed by the housing and bracket; see Figs. 6-8) that is isolated from an outside of the suction nozzle (the claim limitations “isolated from” is being construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim language to mean “separated from” or “set apart from;” the isolation space is enclosed by the housing, bracket and lower housing, and is therefore, construed by the Examiner to be isolated from an outside of the suction nozzle, even though the isolated space of Grey is not airtight), the isolated space accommodating the motor (16) therein (see fig. 6-8), and
wherein the bracket (46) is disposed between the motor and the rotating brush (36; see annotated fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grey is not construed by the examiner to explicitly teach that the isolated space is isolated from the suction space; wherein the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space; as Grey does not specifically provide details of whether the compartment containing the motor is isolated from (“separated from” or “set apart from”) the suction space containing the brush roll.
However, Wilkinson teaches a cleaner head which includes a first housing portion 30, wherein the isolated space housing the motor 16 is isolated from the suction space (see annotated fig. 1 below, wherein Wilkinson teaches structure isolating (“separated from” or “set apart from”) the motor space from the suction space). Wilkinson teaches the first housing portion includes an adjustment mechanism 28 for ensuring proper tension of the transmission [0037].
PNG
media_image2.png
598
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grey to incorporate the teachings of Wilkinson to provide wherein the isolated space is isolated (“separated from” or “set apart from”) from the suction space. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Wilkinson’s structure including housing portion 30 for seating the transmission of Grey, wherein the housing portion is adjustable for ensuring proper tension (as taught by Wilkinson). Doing so would provide a properly tensioned transmission (paragraph 0006 of Wilkinson), which promotes longevity and lifetime of the transmission (paragraph 0006 of Wilkinson).
Grey, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space.
However, Morgan teaches a vacuum cleaner with an airtight chamber within its base 102 sealed by a gasket situated between the base top and the base bottom with the motor assembly 240 located in the isolated airtight chamber in the base 102. See Morgan, Col. 9, lines 19-39 and Fig. 12.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Grey, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Morgan to provide wherein the chamber housing the motor of Grey is airtight. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the gasket teachings of Morgan to provide wherein the chamber housing the motor of Grey is airtight. Doing so would ensure that dust and debris does not accumulate on the motor, thereby promoting an extended lifetime of the motor.
In summary, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space (As modified above, the space housing the motor of Grey is an airtight chamber via the incorporated gasket of Morgan. Therefore, the housing and the bracket are configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space. Specifically, the incorporated gasket prevents dust from leaking from the suction space to the motor chamber).
Regarding claim 28, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 27. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the transmission further comprises: a driving pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) coupled to the motor shaft (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey); a driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) connected to the rotating brush (36) and disposed forward relative to the driving pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey); a middle pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey) disposed between the driving pulley and the driven pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey); and a plurality of belts (74/76)configured to transfer the rotational force of the motor (16) from the driving pulley to the driven pulley through the middle pulley (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above of Grey).
Regarding claim 29, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 28. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the plurality of belts comprise: a first belt (74) disposed at a first side (side 46, see Fig. 6 of Grey) of the rotating brush (36) and configured to transfer the rotational force of the motor (16) from the driving pulley to the middle pulley; and a second belt (76) disposed at the first side (side 46, see Fig. 6) of the rotating brush (36) and configured to transfer rotational force of the middle pulley to the driven pulley, and wherein the detachable cover (70) is disposed at a second side (side 44; see Figs 11 and 12 of Grey; the detachable cover is construed to be disposed across the entire width; and is therefore, construed to be disposed at the second side) of the rotating brush (36) opposite to the first side (side 46) of the rotating brush (36).
Claims 17-18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey et al. (US PGPUB 20210307572), hereinafter Grey, in view of Wilkinson et al. (US PGPUB 20130196802), hereinafter Wilkinson, and further in view of Morgan (US Patent 8528166), as applied to claims 11, 13-16, 19, 21-22, and 25 above, and further in view of Okazaki et al. (WO 2011158596), hereinafter Okazaki.
Regarding claim 17, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the rotating brush comprises: a brush body (see Figs. 5-7 of Grey) having a cylindrical shape (see Figs. 5-7 of Grey), a brush member attached to an outer circumferential surface of the brush body configured to contact the floor (bristles 38, fig. 5, [0051] of Grey).
Grey, as modified, does not explicitly teach the brush body defining an opening at a side thereof, and a second shaft member disposed in the opening of the brush body and configured to engage with the first shaft member.
However, Okazaki teaches a brush body (60) defining an opening (60d) at a side thereof, and a second shaft member (60g) disposed in the opening (60d) of the brush body and configured to engage with a first shaft member (73, including power transmission ribs 73a). See Figs. 19-21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the cleaner of Grey, as modified, wherein the brush body further defining an opening at a side thereof, and a second shaft member disposed in the opening of the brush body and configured to engage with the first shaft member, as taught by Okazaki. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the shaft member of Okazaki and additional transmission means. Doing so would allow the power to be transmitted from the motor to the brush roller as intended. Additionally, doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known power transmission means for another known power transmission means to obtain the predictable results of transferring power to the brush.
Regarding claim 18, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 17. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the brush member (Grey, 36) comprises a plurality of bristles (Grey, 38).
Regarding claim 26, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 25. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the rotating brush (36) comprises: a brush body (36 of Grey) having a cylindrical shape (see Figs. 5-7 of Grey), a plurality of bristles (Grey, 38) attached to an outer circumferential surface of the brush body and configured to contact the floor (bristles 38, fig. 5, [0051] of Grey).
Grey, as modified, does not explicitly teach the brush body defining an opening at a side thereof and a second shaft member disposed in the opening of the brush body and configured to engage with the first shaft member.
However, Okazaki teaches a brush body (60) defining an opening (60d) at a side thereof, and a second shaft member (60g) disposed in the opening (60d) of the brush body and configured to engage with a first shaft member (73, including power transmission ribs 73a). See Figs. 19-21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the cleaner of Grey, as modified, wherein the brush body further defining an opening at a side thereof, and a second shaft member disposed in the opening of the brush body and configured to engage with the first shaft member, as taught by Okazaki. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the shaft member of Okazaki and additional transmission means. Doing so would allow the power to be transmitted from the motor to the brush roller as intended. Additionally, doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known power transmission means for another known power transmission means to obtain the predictable results of transferring power to the brush.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey et al. (US PGPUB 20210307572), hereinafter Grey, in view of Wilkinson et al. (US PGPUB 20130196802), hereinafter Wilkinson, and further in view of Morgan (US Patent 8528166), as applied to claims 27-29 above, and further in view of Iles et al. (US PGPUB 20130086769), hereinafter Iles.
Regarding claim 30, Grey, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 29. Additionally, Grey, as modified, teaches wherein the middle pulley comprises a first middle pulley (portion of middle pulley connected to the first belt 74; see Fig. 13 of Grey) and a second middle pulley (portion of middle pulley connected to the second belt 76 of Grey), the second middle pulley protruding from the first middle pulley (fig. 13 of Grey), wherein the first belt (74) is wound around the driving pulley and the first middle pulley (See Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above and Paragraph 0070 of Grey), wherein the second belt (76 of Grey) is wound around the driven pulley and the second middle pulley (See Examiner Annotated Fig. 13 above and Paragraph 0070 of Grey), wherein a diameter of the first middle pulley is greater than a diameter of the second middle pulley (see Fig. 13 of Grey; although the diameter of the second middle pulley is not shown in Fig. 13; Fig. 13 graphically shows the size of the second pulley to be smaller than the first pulley by virtue of the distance between parallel portions of the second belt (76) being smaller than the distance between parallel portions of first belt (74)) and a diameter of the driving pulley (see Examiner annotated fig. 13 above of Grey).
Grey, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein a diameter of the driven pulley is greater than the diameter of the first middle pulley.
However, Iles teaches a cleaner head wherein a diameter of the driven pulley is greater than the diameter of the first middle pulley (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Grey, as modified, to incorporate wherein a diameter of the driven pulley is greater than the diameter of the first middle pulley. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Grey such that a diameter of the driven pulley is greater than the diameter of the first middle pulley. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known pulley size configuration for another known pulley size configuration to obtain the predictable results of transferring rotary motion to the brush.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art relied upon does not teach all claim limitations as recited. Specifically, Applicant argues Wilkinson fails to teach that the main housing, the lower housing and the bracket together define an isolated space (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wilkinson was not relied upon to teach the main housing, the lower housing and the bracket together define an isolated space. Rather, Wilkinson was relied upon to teach the structure isolating the motor space from the suction space. This isolating structure was incorporated into Grey to provide a properly tensioned transmission. This incorporated isolating structure, in combination with the teachings of Grey, was relied upon to teach the main housing the lower housing and the bracket together defining an isolated space isolated from the suction space. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Morgan fails to teach the isolated space is isolated from the suction space and an outside of the nozzle and also fails to teach configured to prevent the dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space. Applicant submits that Morgan teaches air vents for cooling internal components. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Morgan was not relied upon to teach the isolated space is isolated from the suction space and an outside of the nozzle. Rather Grey was relied upon to teach the isolated space is isolated from the outside of the nozzle (as interpreted under BRI, see above rejection) and Grey in view of Wilkinson was relied upon to teach the isolated space is isolated from the suction space (via the incorporated isolating structure). See above rejection for more details. Morgan was relied upon for the teaching of the gasket situated between the base top and the base bottom. Morgan was not relied upon for the teaching of vents. The gasket teaching of Morgan was incorporated into Grey, as modified, to provide a seal against airflow between the motor chamber and suction chamber of Grey, as modified. The incorporated gasket teaching prevents dust in the suction space from entering the isolated space.
Overall, Morgan alone was not relied upon to teach the claim language. Rather, the gasket teaching of Morgan was incorporated into Grey, as modified, in order to teach the claim language. The arguments towards Morgan’s vents are not persuasive because Morgan’s vent structure and housing structure was not relied upon. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues impermissible hindsight is used to modify Morgan’s ventilated base to arrive at the features of claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner fails to establish how the proposed combination would work (page 11 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As noted above, Morgan was not relied upon to teach vents or features of the housing. Rather, Morgan was relied upon for a gasket teaching. This gasket teaching was then incorporated into Grey, as modified. Overall, Morgan’s vents were not modified to be blocked with the gasket as modified. Additionally, Morgan was not relied upon as the primary reference. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the additionally cited art fails to cure the deficiencies of Grey, as modified. Applicant also argues claims 19 and 27 are allowable for similar reasons as to those presented above. Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Grey in view of Wilkinson and further in view Morgan was relied upon to teach independent claims 11, 19 and 27, wherein the arguments were not found persuasive. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
4. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723