DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on 1 July 2025, amending all claims drawn to the elected invention, leaving only claims drawn to a non-elected invention is non-responsive (MPEP § 821.03) and would not have been entered. The claims, as amended, are not readable on the elected invention because the elected embodiment was directed to a step of reducing at least one motor speed in response to the facing distance being larger than an upper limit, whereas the currently claimed step of stopping at least one motor in the same circumstance was a non-elected embodiment/step.
Since the above-mentioned amendment appears to be a bona fide attempt to reply, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) ARE AVAILABLE but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).
However, in response to the interview held 22 July 2025 (summary attached), for the sake of timely examination, the examiner and attorney agreed to consider the claims as supported by the originally elected species, with the motor speed decreased, as opposed to stopped.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation (lines 4-5) that the facing distance is defined between the cleaning module and a facing surface of the cleaning module, effectively suggests that the distance is between the cleaning module and the cleaning module. However, as written in claim 11, it is understood that the claimed “facing distance” between the cleaning module and a facing surface (wall/floor surface external to the module), and will be considered as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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).
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…”), 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), the output of both motors is increased. 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 controlling (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 argues 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 discloses another similar cleaner and method of operation, also having a cleaning module (5/7) and a body (1), at least one motor for suctioning air outside the cleaning apparatus; at least one sensor included in 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 the at least one sensor detects a direction which forms an acute angle with a normal of a bottom surface, and wherein the facing distance may be defined by either a first distance between the cleaning module and a floor surface, or a second distance between the cleaning module and a wall surface. Yoshioka specifically discloses that the motor is to be controlled based on the distance of the cleaning module from the surface to be cleaned, 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 (Abstract). 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 Yoshioka, to allow the cleaner of Osawa to similarly conserve power by reducing the speed of the motor as the facing distance to a floor is detected to be increased, while also allowing the sensor to detect a facing distance to a wall, as intended by Osawa (with the teaching of Osawa that an angled orientation will allow for detection of the distance between two separate surfaces), to allow Osawa to detect the distance between the cleaning module and a floor surface or a wall surface, and control the motor as a result of the detected facing distance.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's remaining arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that the Osawa reference is intended to reduce the nozzle motor when the sensed distance becomes smaller. However, the applicant does not cite any disclosure that supports the assertion. The examiner maintains that Osawa does in fact disclose the opposite, that the motor speed is increased when the distance becomes smaller, specifically for the reasoning of increasing cleaning force along a wall surface.
The applicant also argues that the reasoning provided for Osawa (and also later for Yoshioka) for change in motor speed, in response to detected distance from a surface, is different than the applicant’s reasoning. However, in this case, the prior art teaches the same process as set forth in the claim, regardless of the reasoning, and thus, anticipates the claimed process relative to the motor speed changes in response to detected distance from a surface.
The applicant then argues that Osawa fails to disclose that the sensor is directed to form an acute angle with the normal of the floor surface. The examiner agrees with the argument, which is the reasoning for providing the secondary Yoshioka reference, which clearly shows the distance sensor at an acute angle with the normal of the floor surface in Fig. 8.
The applicant then argues that the Yoshioka reference fails to disclose the controls relating to the change in motor speed, in response to detected distance from a surface, but again fails to provide any supporting citations from the prior art reference. However, Yoshioka does disclose the claimed functions, as discussed in the rejections above. Again, although the reasoning may be different than the applicant’s, Yoshioka does make obvious the claimed process.
The applicant lastly argues that Yoshioka is silent regarding the orientation of the sensor. However, as discusser above, Yoshioka clearly shows the sensor in the claimed orientation in Fig. 8.
Therefore, the examiner maintains all of the previous rejections, as recited 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 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 4 May 2026
Prosecution Insights