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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 06/11/2026, claims 1 and 4 have been amended, claims 12 and 13 are cancelled, and new claims 15-18 are added. Claims 3, 7, and 14 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, and 15-18 are pending and under examination.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a suction unit configured to execute negative pressure suction” and “an air guiding mechanism configured to guide a suction air” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, and 15-18 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.
In claim 1, lines 13-15, the phrase “the rotary brush, the suction unit, the air guiding mechanism, the seat portion, and the driving operator and the cleaning operator are disposed in the first area” lacks written description requirement. Specification of the instant application states “the cleaning working unit, the seat portion, and the operation input unit are disposed in the first area” (p. 12:5-7). Specification does not state the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are disposed in the first area. Figure 2B shows the suction unit 16 and the air guiding mechanism 17 are disposed below the seat portion 12, but no figure shows whether the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are disposed in the first area. Therefore, the phrases lack the written description.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, and 15-18 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoon et al. (WO 9700115A1, hereinafter Burgoon), in view of Wang et al. (CN 115075173A, hereinafter Wang), Leskovec (US 4506750), Chen et al. (CN 214061436U, hereinafter Chen ‘436), Shi et al. (CN 112502015B, hereinafter Shi), and Powell (US 2021/0384580).
Regarding claim 1, Burgoon discloses, fig. 5, a boarding sweeper (sweeper 10) comprising:
a rotary brush configured to execute cleaning work (p. 4:14-16, a front brush 28 [corresponds to the recited rotary brush] assists and directs debris into a hopper opening);
a suction unit (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The suction unit 16 includes a fan 161 and a filter portion 162 (¶ 0023)) configured to execute negative pressure suction so as to suck foreign matter generated by the cleaning work of the rotary brush (p. 5:20-27, when the sweeper 10 is operating, a fan 60 causes suction air flow. The air or debris enters a hopper 24 and follows chambers eventually into a filter 58);
an air guiding mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The air guiding mechanism 17 includes a suction port 171, an exhaust port 172, and an air guide passage 173 (¶ 0024)) configured to guide a suction air from the suction unit (see annotated Burgoon fig. 5 below, an opening 40 [corresponds to the recited suction port] and a duct work 62 [corresponds to the recited air guide passage] render air sucked by the fan 60 to flow in the sweeper 10 and to exit out of the sweeper through the recited exhaust port);
a seat portion configured to allow a user to sit thereon (p. 4:8-10, a chassis supports a driver’s seat 18. A driver is to sit on the driver’s seat to operate the sweeper);
a driving operator and a cleaning operator configured to allow the user to input a driving operation (p. 4:6-10, the sweeper is operated by a steering wheel 20 [corresponds to the recited driving operator] for driving wheels and control mechanisms 22 [corresponds to the recited cleaning operator] for various other controls); and
a battery holder configured to hold a battery unit (annotated Burgoon fig. 5 below, a battery holder holds a battery 36), wherein,
when an area on one lateral side with respect to a virtual line passing through in a front-and-rear direction of a vehicle body in plan view is defined as a first area and an area on the other lateral side is defined as a second area, the rotary brush, the seat portion, and the driving operator and the cleaning operator are disposed in the first area, and the battery holder is disposed in the second area (see annotated Burgoon fig. 5 below, the front brush 28, the driver’s seat 18, the steering wheel 20, and the control mechanisms 22 are disposed in the first area. The battery holder is disposed in the second area), but does not disclose the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are also disposed in the first area, and the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are disposed between the rotary brush and the pair of left and right rear wheels in the front-and-rear direction.
Wang teaches, in an analogous boarding sweeper field of endeavor, the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are disposed in the first area (figs. 1, 10, 11 and Wang English translation, p. 9:7-24, a sweeper comprises a negative pressure generating device 3 [corresponds to the recited suction unit] including a fan 33 and a filter core 32 and the recited air guiding mechanism including an upper inlet 461 [corresponds to the recited suction port], a suction port 314 [corresponds to the recited air guide passage], and an exhaust port 312. The recited air guiding mechanism is disposed below the negative pressure generating device 3, and the negative pressure generating device 3 is disposed in a side where a seat and a driving operator are located. Therefore, the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are disposed in the recited first area. As discussed in 112(a) rejection, the recited claim limitations lack the written description requirement), and the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are disposed between the rotary brush and the pair of left and right rear wheels in the front-and-rear direction (fig. 1, the recited suction unit and the air guiding mechanism are disposed between a brush module 12 and a pair of rear wheels in the front-and-rear direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boarding sweeper of Burgoon to dispose the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism in the first area and between the brush and rear wheels as taught by Wang. The suction unit and the air guiding mechanism would be disposed at a right position in consideration of weight balance of the sweeper.
Burgoon as modified by Wang does not disclose explicitly the battery holder holds the battery unit detachably.
Leskovec teaches, in a battery powered vehicle field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the battery holder holds the battery unit detachably (figs. 1, 3-4 and col. 3:31-34, a source of motive power such as a battery 24 is connected to a frame 22 of a vehicle 10 [corresponds to the recited battery holder]; the battery can be removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang to provide the battery holder that detachably holds the battery as taught by Leskovec so that a depleted battery can be replaced easily for continuous operation of the vehicle.
Burgoon as modified by Wang and Leskovec does not disclose the sweeper comprises a pair of left and right rear wheels and a single front wheel, wherein the rotary brush is disposed on the one lateral side with respect to the front wheel.
Chen ‘436 teaches, in an analogous sweeper field of endeavor, a pair of left and right rear wheels and a single front wheel, wherein the rotary brush is disposed on the one lateral side with respect to the front wheel (figs. 1-2, a sweeper comprises a pair of left and right rear wheels and a single front wheel. A cleaning device 6 [corresponds to the recited rotary brush] is disposed on one lateral side with respect to the front wheel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang and Leskovec to provide the wheels and the rotary brush as recited as taught by Chen ‘436. The single front wheel can provide the brush a large space to execute sweeping on a surface for effective cleaning.
Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, and Chen ‘436 does not disclose there is a plurality of battery units, and the battery holder is configured to be able to hold the plurality of battery units.
Shi teaches, in a battery powered vehicle field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, there is a plurality of battery units, and the battery holder is configured to be able to hold the plurality of battery units (Shi English translation, p. 13:33-36, a vehicle is powered by a battery pack 76 comprising a plurality of battery units as shown in fig. 19. The battery pack is disposed in a rear cavity [corresponds to the recited battery holder] of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, and Chen ‘436 to provide the plurality of battery units as taught by Shi in order to operate the electric vehicle with a large power for a long time.
Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, and Shi does not disclose the battery holder is configured such that holding positions of the plurality of battery units can be adjusted in the front-and-rear direction.
Powell teaches, in a vehicle field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the battery holder is configured such that holding positions of the plurality of battery units can be adjusted in the front-and-rear direction (figs. 1, 2, and 4 and ¶ 0027 and 0030, a system 100 [corresponds to the recited battery holder] of a vehicle comprises a frame 110 for adjusting a position of a battery 105 [correspond to the recited battery unit] along X, Y, and Z axes. Fig. 4 shows the system 100 comprises multiple frames 110 to allow the X, Y, and Z direction position adjustment of a plurality of batteries 105 individually. The system 100 of Powell can replace the battery holder of Burgoon to allow the holding positions of the battery unit to be adjusted in the front-and-rear direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery holder of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, and Shi to provide the front-and-rear direction position adjustment of the plurality of battery units as taught by Powell. The position adjustment of the batteries allows weight distribution of the vehicle to increase efficiency, performance, and safety (Powell ¶ 0030).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Burgoon Fig. 5
Regarding claim 2, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the rotary brush includes a rotation axis in a vertical direction of a vehicle body (see annotated Burgoon fig. 5 above, the front brush 28 has a rotation axis in a vertical direction of the sweeper).
Regarding claim 4, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the driving operator is a steering mechanism having the front wheel as a steering wheel (Burgoon, p. 4:6-8, the steering wheel 20 directs the wheel to steer; Chen ‘436, fig. 1, the front wheel is a steering wheel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell to make the front wheel to be the steering wheel as taught by Chen ‘436. The front steering wheel provide stable moving motion of a vehicle so that the sweeper can move to an intended cleaning area quickly.
Regarding claim 5, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the battery holder is disposed at a position overlapping a range from the driving operator and the cleaning operator to the seat portion in a side view (see annotated Burgoon fig. 5 above, the battery holder is disposed next to the steering wheel 20 and the control mechanisms 22 [correspond to the recited driving operator and cleaning operator], and the driver’s seat 18 [corresponds to the recited seat portion]).
Regarding claim 6, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the battery holder is configured to be able to insert and remove the battery unit in a vertical direction of a vehicle body (Leskovec, col. 3:27-34, the battery 24 can be vertically removed after opening a hood 18 of the vehicle 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery holder of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell to provide the battery unit to be inserted and removed in the vertical direction as taught by Leskovec. The recited battery placement and mounting a control device on the hood eliminate potential for damage to the control device during removal of the battery (Leskovec col. 2:35-37).
Regarding claim 8, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the battery holder is configured such that the plurality of battery units is arranged in the front-and-rear direction of the vehicle body.
Shi teaches the vehicle comprises the plurality of battery units disposed in a direction perpendicular to the front-and-rear direction of the vehicle (fig. 19).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the plurality of battery units in a lateral direction of the vehicle. Specification of the instant application explains the plurality of battery units arranged in the front-and-rear direction of the vehicle makes it easier to balance the center of gravity of the sweeper (¶ 0052). However, the battery units of Shi are evenly arranged in the lateral direction of the vehicle. This arrangement also provides balance of the center of gravity. The battery packs of Shi would perform equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily arrange the battery units in the lateral direction as long as it can provide power to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the battery holder is configured such that the plurality of battery units is arranged in a lateral direction of the vehicle body (Shi, fig. 19, the plurality of battery units 76 is arranged in a lateral direction of the vehicle. The battery pack is disposed in a rear cavity [corresponds to the recited battery holder] of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the air guiding mechanism includes a suction port, an exhaust port and an air guide passage, the air guide passage forming a flow path of a suction air from the suction unit between the suction port and the exhaust port (see annotated Burgoon fig. 5 above, an opening 40 [corresponds to the recited suction port] and a duct work 62 [corresponds to the recited air guide passage] render air sucked by the fan 60 to flow in the sweeper 10 and exit out of the sweeper through the recited exhaust port);
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoon in view of Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chen (CN 113774846A, hereinafter Chen ‘846).
Regarding claim 10, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the front wheel and the rotary brush overlap with each other in a side view.
Chen ‘846 teaches, in an analogous sweeper field of endeavor, the front wheel and the rotary brush overlap with each other in a side view (fig. 1, Chen ‘846 discloses a road sweeper comprising a pair of left and right wheels 21 and a single front wheel 23. A cleaning brush 3 [corresponds to the recited rotary brush] is disposed on a lateral side with respect to the front wheel. The front wheel 23 and the burhs 3 overlap with each other in a side view).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell to provide the front wheel and the cleaning unit to overlap with each other in the side view as taught by Chen ‘846 for diffusing dust to a side for effective cleaning of the dust (Chen ‘846 English translation, abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, Powell, and Chen ‘846 teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 10, wherein the rotary brush includes a rotation axis in a vertical direction of a vehicle body, the rotation axis overlapping with an axis of the front wheel in the side view (see annotated Chen ‘846 fig. 1 below, the cleaning brush 3 has a rotation axis in a vertical direction of the sweeper, and the rotation axis overlaps with an axis of the front wheel in the side view).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, Powell, and Chen ‘846 to provide the rotation axis of the cleaning working unit to overlap with the axis of the front wheel in the side view as taught by Chen ‘846 for effective diffusion of dust in front of the sweeper.
PNG
media_image2.png
768
1199
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Chen ‘846 Figure 1
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoon in view of Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Saragur et al. (WO 2020/026265A1, hereinafter Saragur).
Regarding claim 15, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 1, the suction unit includes a fan configured to perform negative pressure suction, and a filter portion configured to filter particles in the suction air (Burgoon p. 5:20-27, when the sweeper 10 is operating, a fan 60 causes suction air flow. The air or debris enters a hopper 24 and follows chambers eventually into a filter 58. The filter filters particles in the air), but does not disclose explicitly an electric motor driven based on an electric power of the plurality of battery units, and the fan is powered by the electric motor.
Saragur teaches, in an analogous sweeper field of endeavor, an electric motor driven based on an electric power of the plurality of battery units, and the fan is powered by the electric motor (¶ 0008, a suction fan of a sweeper is driven by a motor powered by the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell to provide the fan to be powered by the battery powered motor as taught by Saragur so that the sweeper can be a cordless vehicle in vacuuming debris from a street surface. The cordless sweeper can clean a large area.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoon in view of Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. (CN 113565049A, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 17, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 16, wherein the exhaust port is disposed on a rear side with respect to the suction port (see annotated Burgoon fig. 5 above, the exhaust port is disposed on a rear side with respect to the suction port), but does not disclose the exhaust port discharges the suction air to an outside of the sweeper on a front side with respect to the pair of left and right rear wheels.
Zhang teaches, in an analogous sweeper field of endeavor, the exhaust port discharges the suction air to an outside of the sweeper on a front side with respect to the pair of left and right rear wheels (fig. 1, a road sweeper comprises a suction unit including a suction fan 11 and a filter screen 10, and suction air is discharged outside of the sweeper via an exhaust pipe 13 [corresponds to the recited exhaust port] wherein the exhaust pipe 13 is disposed on a front side with respect to a pair of rear wheels 2. The exhaust port of Burgoon can be modified to be arranged at a location on the front side with respect to the pair of rear wheels as taught by Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sweeper of Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell to provide the exhaust port on the front side with respect to the pair of left and right rear wheels.as taught by Zhang. Zhang’s exhaust port faces upward at a middle of the sweeper so that the exhaust air does not scatter debris on a street. It would not disturb function of the suction unit.
Regarding claim 18, Burgoon as modified by Wang, Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, Powell, and Zhang teaches the sweeper as in the rejection of claim 17, wherein the seat portion, and the driving operator and the cleaning operator are disposed above the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism (see annotated Burgoon fig. 5 above and fig. 1, the driver’s seat 18 [corresponds to the recited seat portion], steering wheel 20 [correspond to the recited driving operator], and the control mechanisms 22 [corresponds to the recited cleaning operator] are disposed at a vertically higher position than the recited suction unit and the air guiding mechanism).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Powell does not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations of claim 1 regarding a suction unit and an air guiding mechanism.
However, Powell is a secondary reference cited for teaching the battery holder configured to adjust holding positions of the plurality of battery unit. It is a Burgoon reference that teaches the boarding sweeper. The Burgoon teaches the amended claim limitations regarding the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism. The boarding sweeper of Burgoon comprises the fan, the filter, the suction port, the exhaust port, and the air guide passage as shown in the annotated Burgoon fig. 5 above.
Applicant argues combination of Leskovec, Chen ‘436, Shi, and Powell is improper due to impermissible hindsight and lack of motivation to combine. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Burgoon teaches the most of the recited features of the boarding sweeper, Leskovec teaches the battery unit can be detachably held, Chen ‘436 teaches the rotary brush can be disposed on one lateral side of the sweeper, Shi teaches the battery holder can hold a plurality of battery units, and Powell teaches the battery holder can adjust holding positions of the battery units. They teach distinctive features which can be combined with Burgoon to teach the recited claim limitations.
Regarding claim limitations of new claims, Saragur teaches a suction fan can be driven by an electric motor wherein the electric motor is powered by the battery. In addition, Zhang teaches the exhaust port for discharging suction air can be disposed on a front side of the rear wheels. Finally, Burgoon further teaches the boarding sweeper comprising the suction unit and the air guiding mechanism.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights