DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new limitations defining the respective control functions are not fully supported by the original application and are considered to introduce New Matter. Specifically, the original application supports increasing the output of the suction motor from the first output value to a second output value in response to detection of a wall-contact state, but does not provide disclosure that the output of the nozzle motor is maintained in response to detection of a wall-contact state, and similarly the original application supports decreasing the output of the nozzle motor as a result of detecting a lifting or overturned state of the cleaning module, but does not support maintaining the output of the suction motor as a result of detecting a lifting or overturned state. The application is effectively silent as to the operation of the nozzle motor in response to detection of a wall-contact state and operation of the suction motor as a result of detecting a lifting or overturned state, which is not equivalent to disclosure that the operation of the respective motors is maintained. Due to the lack of support, the respective limitations of maintaining the output of the nozzle motor and the suction motor will not be considered.
Similarly, the amended limitation at the end of both claims is not fully supported because, although the original application does recite that the suction motor is restored to a first value to a second value after a predetermined time, the additional limitation that the fist value is restored even while the facing distance remains smaller than the predetermined lower limit value, is not explicitly disclosed.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (JP 2019063354 A) in view of Yoshioka (JP 2013202094 A) and Iizuka et al. (JP 2015/165835).
NOTE: The examiner inadvertently combined the Yoshioka and Iizuka references, citing disclosure of Iizuka as Yoshioka in the previous Office Actions. Thus, while the current rejection appears to differ from the previous rejections due to the addition of Iizuka, the rejection is actually the same combination of teachings, with the sources corrected appropriately.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Osawa discloses a cleaning apparatus including a cleaning module (8) and a body (1), comprising: a suction motor (2) for suctioning air outside the cleaning apparatus; a nozzle motor (10) for rotating a brush (9) of the cleaning module, the nozzle motor being included in the cleaning module; at least one sensor (11) included in the cleaning module, and detecting a facing distance between the cleaning module and a facing surface external to the cleaning module by at least one sensor disposed in the cleaning module, while the motors are operating; and at least one processor (controller 3) controlling an output of the at least motors based on the facing distance (Abstract) from the sensor, wherein the at least one sensor is directed in a direction which forms an acute angle with a normal of a bottom surface (Figs. 14-15; disclosing that the sloped orientation allows for detection of distances between two separate surfaces that are perpendicular to one another; Paragraph starting with “Fig. 15 is a view…”), thus providing the majority of the control method of claim 1 comprising, operating at least one motor for suctioning air outside the cleaning apparatus; acquiring a facing distance between a cleaning module of the cleaning apparatus and a facing surface of the cleaning module by at least one sensor while the at least one motor is operating; and controlling an output of the at least one motor based on the facing distance, wherein the at least one sensor is directed in a direction which forms an acute angle with a normal of a bottom surface (overhanging surface above the module in Figs. 14-15), and the facing distance and wherein when the facing distance is larger (Da) than a predetermined upper limit value (Dx; paragraph starting with “In the output characteristics shown in Fig. 6…”; effectively a normal floor-contact state), the output of the at both motors is decreased to a normal state (from an increased state that is active when the distance is smaller than a predetermined lower limit Da). Osawa also discloses that controlling of the motor includes the step of controlling, when the facing distance is smaller (Db) than a predetermined lower limit value (Dx), effectively a wall-contact state, the output of the suction motor is increased (again, the limitation relating to maintaining the output of the nozzle motor during the wall-contact state is not supported by the original application). Osawa further disclose that controlling of the motor includes the step of changing the output of the at least one motor from a first output value to a second output value based on a change of the facing distance (as discussed supra), and wherein the method further comprises restoring the output of the at least one motor from the second output value to the first output when a predetermined time elapsed after the suction motor is increased to the second output value (as shown in Figs. 8 and 11, the distance is checked at specified time intervals, such that when the motor speed is elevated based on a detected smaller facing distance, and then moved beyond the predetermined lower limit, the motor speed will returned to the normal state (below an increased limit VA) upon the next detecting time interval).
Additionally/alternatively regarding the limitation of restoring output after a predetermined time (because the applicant previously argued that the disclosure of Osawa, including the cited Figures do not support this limitation), Osawa also discloses (Background Art section) that it is known in the prior art that the suction force is controlled to increase automatically for a predetermined time. Thus, teaching that it is well known in the art, when a suction force is automatically increased, to only increase the suction force for a limited amount of time, which will be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to conserve energy and prevent overload or overheating of the suction motor. Therefore, even if the disclosure of Osawa is not considered to support the claimed limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar function, disclosed by Osawa to be known in the art, of reducing or returning the suction motor force to a first (lower) output after a predetermined time of operation at a first (higher) output.
However, Osawa fails to disclose that the sensor is configured to be directed downward at an acute angle to the normal of a floor surface, to be capable of defining a facing distance between the cleaning module and a wall or between the cleaning module and a floor surface. Yoshioka and Iizuka both disclose another similar cleaner and method of operation, also having a cleaning module (26 of Yoshioka and 5/7 of Iizuka), at least one motor for suctioning air outside the cleaning apparatus; at least one sensor (17/18 of Iizuka) included on the cleaning module, and detecting a facing distance between the cleaning module and a facing surface while the at least one motor is operating; and at least one processor controlling an output of the at least one motor based on the facing distance (Abstract),wherein Iizuka discloses an embodiment where the at least one sensor (18 of Fig. 9) detects a direction which forms an acute angle with a normal of a bottom surface. Yoshioka and Iizuka both specifically disclose that at least one of the nozzle motor and suction motor (both for Yoshioka and the suction motor for Iizuka) are to be controlled based on the distance of the cleaning module from the surface to be cleaned, with the power of the motors being reduced as the distance from a cleaning surface increases (Abstract for Yoshioka and Iizuka) to conserve power used by the cleaner as the cleaner is moved away from the surface by reducing power to the motor as the distance increases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the sensor of Osawa (either as an alternative orientation or as an additional sensor) in a similar orientation as the sensor of Iizuka, being oriented at an acute angle with the floor surface, which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be capable of detecting a distance between the cleaning module and the floor surface to be cleaned, as well as a wall surface, as taught by Osawa to be capable of detecting distances between two separate surfaces that are perpendicular to one another), to overcome the need for more than one sensor to detect the respective distances, effectively providing the functions of the sensor (11) of Osawa and a downward facing sensor of Yoshioka. Further, it would have been obvious to provide the additional operating function of identifying a lifting or overturned state (Yoshioka also discloses that increased distance for a certain period of time will suggest a turned over state) of the cleaning module when the facing distance acquired by the at least one sensor is larger than the predetermined upper-limit value, and responsively decrease the output of the nozzle motor (reduction of nozzle motor taught by Yoshioka) to allow the cleaner of Osawa to similarly conserve power.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's remaining arguments filed 5 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that the Osawa reference is structurally incompatible with the present application due to the front acing sensor. However, the combination of the teaching of Osawa that an angled sensor can detect distances from two surfaces that are perpendicular to one another, and Iizuka teaches the sensor oriented at an acute angle with the floor surface to be cleaned.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the examiner does not provide support for the reduction of nozzle speed upon close approach (to the wall), citing disclosure of Osawa that the nozzle speed is reduced. However, as discussed above, the limitation that the nozzle speed is maintained during a wall-contact state is not supported by the applicant’s original application. Therefore, the argument is moot.
The applicant then argues that the function of the sensor of Osawa is different than the user’s intent of human safety when a lifting or overturned state is detected. In response, as discussed above, Osawa is not relied upon for this function, but Yoshioka is applied as teaching to reduce and/or stop the nozzle motor when the cleaner is determined to be lifted from the floor. Although Yoshioka discloses the reasoning as conserving power, the function of increasing safety is still provided by reducing or stopping the nozzle motor, as taught by Yoshioka.
The applicant then argues that the amended limitation relating to automatic restoration of the suction motor after a predetermined time is not taught by Osawa. However, the limitation that the restoration is independent of the facing distance is not supported by the original application, as discussed above, and the examiner has addressed this limitation in the previous Office Action (repeated above), based on the disclosure of Osawa that it is known in the prior art that the suction force is controlled to increase automatically for a predetermined time. This response is also applicable to the argument that the prolonged increased high-load would lead to energy waste and overheating, because Osawa teaches that it is known to increase only for a predetermined time.
Next, the applicant argues that Osawa does not provide the “tri-zonal independent control framework”. However, Osawa teaches two of the zones (floor and wall-contact states), an the third (lifted or overturned) is taught by Yoshioka and Iizuka, as discussed above.
The applicant then argues that the Yoshioka reference fails to disclose the sensor oriented as claimed. The examiner has clarified above, that the Iizuka reference was inadvertently combined with the teaching of Yoshioka, wherein Iizuka is actually relied upon for the claimed orientation of the sensor. It is also noted that the rejections have referenced Yoshioka for this teaching for all four of the preceding rejections, and the applicant has only now raised the issue that Yoshioka does not show the sensor oriented as referenced by the examiner, which led to the realization that Iizuka is a separate reference that does teach the claimed orientation.
The applicant lastly argues that Yoshioka also does not teach the “tri-zonal independent control framework” that separately manages the suction motor and nozzle, focusing only on power reduction. However, as discussed above, the limitations for maintain respective outputs of the motors, which effectively defines the separate management of the motors, is not supported by the original application, wherein the combination of the cited prior art is considered to teach the claimed and supported “tri-zonal independent control framework”.
Therefore, the examiner maintains all of the previous rejections, as recited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached on 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 20 August 2026
Prosecution Insights