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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 23, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40 are currently amended.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-26, 28-33, and 35-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. US 11484169 B2 in view of Tondra (US 20060130270 A1), Taylor (US 20210059492 A1), Getz (US 4706327 A), and Johnson (US 5467502 A).
Instant Application
Reference Patent
21. A surface treatment apparatus comprising: a surface cleaning head having an agitator; an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate; an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned; and a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to the surface to be cleaned and to transition the surface treatment apparatus between a first operational mode corresponding to a hard floor surface type and a second operational mode corresponding to a carpet floor surface type based, at least in part, on the determined surface type, wherein determining the surface type includes: determining the engagement distance; measuring a plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval; determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, the first threshold being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance; and transitioning the surface treatment apparatus between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison, wherein transitioning operational modes includes causing the agitator height adjuster to adjust the engagement distance; and
the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold. .
1. A surface treatment apparatus comprising: a surface cleaning head having an agitator;
an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate; and a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to a surface to be cleaned and to transition the surface treatment apparatus between a first operational mode and a second operational mode based, at least in part, on the determined surface type, wherein determining the surface type includes: initializing the first operational mode of the surface treatment apparatus;
measuring a first plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a first predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval;
measuring a second plurality of values corresponding to the current draw of the agitator motor over a second predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval; determining a first average corresponding to the first plurality of measured values; determining a second average corresponding to the second plurality of measured values; comparing the first average and the second average to at least a first threshold; initializing the second operational mode when at least one of the first average or the second average exceeds the first threshold; and remaining in the first operational mode when none of the first average and the second average exceeds the first threshold.
28. A vacuum cleaner comprising :a surface cleaning head having an agitator; a dust cup fluidly coupled to the surface cleaning head; a suction motor fluidly coupled to the surface cleaning head; an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate; an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned; and a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to the surface to be cleaned and to transition the vacuum cleaner between a first operational mode corresponding to a hard floor surface type and a second operational mode corresponding to a carpet floor surface type based, at least in part, on the determined surface type, wherein determining the surface type includes: determining the engagement distance; measuring a plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval; determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, the first threshold being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance; and transitioning the vacuum cleaner between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison, wherein transitioning operational modes includes causing the agitator height adjuster to adjust the engagement distance; and
the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold.
3. A vacuum cleaner comprising: a surface cleaning head having an agitator; a dust cup fluidly coupled to the surface cleaning head;
a suction motor fluidly coupled to the surface cleaning head; an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate; and a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to a surface to be cleaned and to transition the vacuum cleaner between a first operational mode and a second operational mode based, at least in part, on the determined surface type, wherein determining the surface type includes:
initializing the first operational mode of the surface treatment apparatus;
measuring a first plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a first predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval;
measuring a second plurality of values corresponding to the current draw of the agitator motor over a second predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval;
determining a first average corresponding to the first plurality measured values;
determining a second average corresponding to the second plurality of measured values;
comparing the first average and the second average to at least a first threshold;
initializing the second operational mode when none of the first average and the second average exceeds the first threshold; and
remaining in the first operational mode when at least one of the first average or the second average exceeds the first threshold.
35. A surface treatment apparatus comprising: a surface cleaning head having an agitator; an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate; an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned; and a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to the surface to be cleaned and to transition the surface treatment apparatus between a first operational mode corresponding to a hard floor surface type and a second operational mode corresponding to a carpet floor surface type based, at least in part, on the determined surface type, wherein determining the surface type includes: determining the engagement distance; measuring a of plurality of values corresponding to one or more parameters of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval; determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, the first threshold being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance; and transitioning the surface treatment apparatus between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison, wherein transitioning operational modes includes causing the agitator height adjuster to adjust the engagement distance; and
the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold.
5. A surface treatment apparatus comprising:
a surface cleaning head having an agitator;
an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate; and a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to a surface to be cleaned and to transition the surface treatment apparatus between a first operational mode and a second operational mode based, at least in part, on the determined surface type, wherein determining the surface type includes: initializing the first operational mode of the surface treatment apparatus;
measuring a first plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a first predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval;
measuring a second plurality of values corresponding to the current draw of the agitator motor over a second predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval; determining a first average corresponding to the first plurality of measured values; determining a second average corresponding to the second plurality of measured values; comparing the first average and the second average to at least a first threshold; initializing the second operational mode when at least one of the first average or the second average exceeds the first threshold; and remaining in the first operational mode when none of the first average and the second average exceeds the first threshold.
Claim 21, 28, and 35 of the instant application correspond to, and are obvious over claims 1, 3, and 5 of the reference patents respectively, except for the features bolded in the first column above.
Regarding the difference of “an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned” and of “wherein transitioning operational modes includes causing the agitator height adjuster to adjust the engagement distance”, Getz (US 4706327 A), in the same field of endeavor, as related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned (roller 40, fig. 3; col 3 lines 27-33). Getz teaches that this arrangement provides an improved easy to use vacuum cleaner for different types of floor coverings (col 2 lines 15-34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified U.S. Patent No. US 11484169 B2 using the teachings above of Getz, for the propose of providing an improved easy to use vacuum cleaner for different types of floor coverings.
Regarding the difference of determining the engagement distance; and the first threshold being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, and of transitioning between a first operational mode corresponding to a hard floor surface type, and a second operational mode corresponding to a carpet surface type Tondra (US 20060130270 A1), in the same field of endeavor as related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of determining the engagement distance (potentiometer P21, fig .4 inputs the position and height of nozzle 100; [0019], and that there can be multiple settings for different carpet heights as in [0018]), and that a current threshold for the agitator motor would be different depending on nozzle/agitator height ([0029] different; “microprocessor 810 can be programmed with a current setting for each suction nozzle height 100 position”); Taylor (US 20210059492 A1) in the same field of endeavor as related to vacuum cleaners, teachers that measuring the current of the agitator, provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance (Taylor, [0019-0021]) and Getz teaches that the floor resistance changes with different height settings of the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25, showing the changes with height for a bare floor in fig. 5 and a shag carpet in fig. 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified U.S. Patent No. US 11484169 B2, to have based the first threshold is being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, as Taylor demonstrates that current thresholds should be based on the height of the agitator, Getz demonstrates that the floor resistance changes depending on the height/engagement distance and floor type, and Taylor demonstrates that the floor type is compared to a threshold that is based on a measurement of floor resistance. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to base the first threshold on the engagement distance [height] of the agitator, as it is demonstrated from the prior art that the engagement distance has an effect on floor resistance, and since the floor resistance used to determine the floor type, as person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using the teachings from the prior art, would have found that basing the first threshold on the engagement distance would result in a more consistent floor type determination, by avoiding variations in the resistance caused by changes in height of the agitator.
Regarding the difference of “transitioning the surface treatment apparatus between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison”, this limitation is obvious over the prior patent limitation of “initializing the second operational mode when at least one of the first average or the second average exceeds the first threshold; and remaining in the first operational mode when none of the first average and the second average exceeds the first threshold”, as the prior patent limitation demonstrates changing of an operational mode based on crossing a threshold.
Regarding the specifics of “the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold” Getz, as noted above, teaches that that the floor resistance changes depending on the height/engagement distance and floor type, specifically that the pile height affects the resistance encountered by the brush (Getz, col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25), and that Tondra provides for different agitator heights for different carpet types ([0018], specifically plush, multilevel, shag, and gropoint). Furthermore, Johnson (US 5467502 A), in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that “It is well known in the art that for cleaning carpet, the preferred height of the agitator brush 34 is directly related to the height of the carpet pile. The agitator brush 34 should be higher when cleaning a high pile or deep shag carpet than when cleaning a low pile carpet” (col 7 lines 33-48). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have modified the claims of the reference patent such that the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold, to provide for a preferred height adjustment to accommodate different carpet pile heights, as taught by Johnson. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have utilized the teachings of Getz, as noticed above, and have provided different (i.e. secondary) thresholds for each type of carpet, as the resistance of the carpet would be different for each type.
The examiner notes that instant claim 21 is additionally obvious over both claims 1 (which is addressed immediately above) as well as 3 of the reference patent, the additional difference with reference claim 3 is that “vacuum cleaner” is recited in reference claim 3 instead of “surface treatment apparatus”, however, a vacuum cleaner” as recited in the reference patent is within the definition of ‘surface treatment apparatus” recited in the instant application. The examiner further notes that instant claim 35 is additionally obvious over both claims 1 and 3 of the reference patents, with the aforementioned additional differences including the previously explained “surface treatment apparatus” and “vacuum cleaner”, and because “the current draw of the agitator motor” fits within the definition of “one or more parameters of the agitator motor”.
The examiner further notes instant claim 21 is also obvious over claim 5 of the reference patent, the differences being the same differences recited immediately above with respect to claims 1 and 3 of the reference patent, with the additional difference being that claim 5 recites “values corresponding to one or more parameters of the agitator motor” instead of “a current draw of the agitator motor”. Taylor teaches that that measuring the current of the agitator, instead of power draw provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance and is not susceptible to other measurements such as the power draw, providing for consistent measurements ([0019-0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified U.S. Patent No. US 11484169 B2 using the teachings of current measurement of Taylor, to arrive at instant claim 21 and 35, because Taylor demonstrates that draw provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance and is not susceptible to other measurements such as the power draw, providing for consistent measurements. The other differences were addressed with respect to claims 1 and 3 of the reference patent, above.
Regarding claims 22, 29, and 36, the US 11484169 B2 as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 21, 30, and 35 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold, the average being compared to the first threshold when the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is operating in the second operational mode, the first threshold being different from the second threshold, and the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold.
Taylor further teaches of providing a threshold range, in which the cleaner would not change modes while in the range ([0050, 0086]; the range providing both a first and second threshold, instead of a single threshold point). Taylor teaches that this allows the vacuum cleaner to tolerate fluctuations while on a single surface type.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified US 11484169 B2 with the teachings of Taylor of providing a threshold range, for the purpose of better tolerating fluctuations in measurements on a single surface type. The modification would have resulted in wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold (as the average would be compared to the higher and lower end of the range, providing two threshold), the average being compared to the first threshold when the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is operating in the second operational mode (average would be compared to [at least] two thresholds in both modes, as a range, to determine whether to change the power level) the first threshold being different from the second threshold (the range provides for two different thresholds). As for the specifics of the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold, as explained in the double patenting rejection of claims 21, 28, and 35, there would be additional (secondary thresholds), corresponding to different carpet types, and it is further noted that the carpet encounters more resistance with higher pile height, therefore, when in the second operational mode, corresponding to carpet, the secondary threshold would be higher than the second threshold (that occurs with a switch from hard floor to carpet).
Regarding claims 23, 30, and 37, the US 11484169 B2 as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 22, 29, and 36 above, and further teaches when the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is in the first operational mode, if the average measures greater than the first threshold the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner transitions to the second operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 22/29/36 above, so if the average measures more than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a second mode], if within the range it doesn’t change; the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
Regarding claims 24, 31, 38, the US 11484169 B2 as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 22, 29, and 36 above, and further teaches when the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is in the second operational mode, if the average measures less than the second threshold the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner transitions to the first operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 22/29/36 above, therefore if the average measures less than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a first mode], the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
With respect to claim 25, 32, 39, US 11484169 B2, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 22, 29, 36 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of predetermined time windows, plurality of predetermined time windows forming a window group [for claims 25 and 32], and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval.
Taylor further teaches of continuing to monitor the load of an agitator and making adjustments to adapt to changing circumstances, rather than adapting once ([0017]), and that the agitator load can be monitored periodically to improve the response time ([0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified US 11484169 B2, with the teachings of Taylor continued measurement, to adapt to changing circumstances, and periodic measurements to improve the response time of determining the floor type. The modification would have resulted in wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of time windows, the plurality of predetermined time windows forming a window group and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval, through the continued/repeated measurements (resulting in a plurality of time windows with corresponding measurements, and the periodic measurements form [which is generally an otherwise abstract grouping of data] as a group of continued measurements, time window is predetermined by the nature of being periodic and continuing), when the teachings of Taylor are applied to the determination of a surface type explained in the rejection of claim 21/28/35 above.
With respect to claim 26, 33, 40, US 11484169 B2, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25, 32, 39 above, and further teaches wherein determining the average further includes determining a plurality of average values, each of the plurality of average values corresponding to a respective predetermined time window (as explained in the rejection of claim 25/32/39 above, the continued measurements would result in the measurement process of claim 21/28/35 being repeated, resulting in a plurality of average a plurality of average values corresponding to a respective time window, the time window is predetermined by the nature of being periodic).
Claims 27, 34 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. US 11484169 B2 in view of Tondra (US 20060130270 A1), Taylor (US 20210059492 A1) and Getz (US 4706327 A), as applied to claims 28 and 33 above, and further in view of Norell (US 20100083462 A1).
With respect to claim 27, US 11484169 B2, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 28, 33 above, however does not explicitly teach when all of the average values within the window group measures less than the second threshold and the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is in the second operational mode, the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner transitions to the first operational mode.
Norell, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, of keeping a count of consecutive current measurements of a motor and only changing the state when a count [a specific window group] of consecutive measurements cross a threshold ([0132]). Norell teaches this helps debounce the measurements ([0132]), and that debouncing measurements helps ensure that the signal is legitimate ([0130]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified US 11484169 B2, with the teachings of Norell, to require consecutive measurements of current to cross a threshold, in order to ensure the signal is legitimate (and also prevent changing mode based on erroneous readings). This modification would have resulted in when all of the average values measures less than the second threshold and the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner is in the second operational mode (applying Norrell all of a plurality or count of consecutive readings [at least two or more values], within the window group crosses the threshold to transition to the first mode), the surface treatment apparatus/vacuum cleaner transitions to the first operational mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-33, 35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra (US 20060130270 A1) in view of Taylor (US 20210059492 A1), Kajiwara (JP 2003290101 A), Koharagi (EP 0458057 B1), Getz (US 4706327 A), and Johnson (US 5467502 A).
With respect to claim 21, Tondra discloses:
A surface treatment apparatus comprising: a surface cleaning head having an agitator (agitator [not shown] is contained in foot 100, fig. 2, [0015]);
an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate (agitator drive motor M1, fig .2, [0016])
an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned (agitator is contained in foot 100, fig .2 as in [0015], and the foot 100 is adjusted by a height adjustment motor M3, fig .2; [0016], which adjusts the height of nozzle/foot 100 relative to the floor, which would be understood to cause the agitator height to adjusted); and
a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to the surface to be cleaned and to transition the surface treatment apparatus between a first operational mode corresponding to a hard floor type and a second operational mode corresponding to a carpet floor type based, at least in part, on the determined surface type (a sensor is connected to a processor 810, fig. 4 [controller] and transitions between modes [from/to a hard floor mode/carpet mode] when the cleaner is moved from a bare floor as in [0018-0019]; see also claim 10 of the publication), wherein transitioning operational modes includes causing the agitator height adjuster to adjust the engagement distance ([0018-0019]) wherein determining the surface type includes:
determining the engagement distance (potentiometer P21, fig .4 inputs the position and height of nozzle 100; [0019]); however, does explicitly disclose measuring a plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval; determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, the first threshold being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance; and transitioning the surface treatment apparatus between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison; and
the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold.
Tondra further discloses of sensing agitator motor current ([0029]) and that a current threshold for the agitator motor would be different depending on nozzle/agitator height ([0029] different; “microprocessor 810 can be programmed with a current setting for each suction nozzle height 100 position”).
Taylor, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of wherein determining the floor surface type includes measuring the current of the agitator and comparison to a first threshold (the vacuum cleaner switches between two modes, a hard floor mode, and a carpet mode, as in [0014-0015]; the current draw compared with a [first] threshold to determine what floor surface type the vacuum cleaner is on as in [0019-0020], the current draw related to the resistance of the floor and type of floor surface as in [0020]). Taylor teaches that this arrangement improves cleaning performance by adjusting the suction motor power depending on the floor type ([0009]), and that measuring the current of the agitator, instead of power draw provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance and is not susceptible to other measurements such as the power draw, providing for consistent measurements ([0019-0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of measuring current of the agitator motor, and comparison to a first threshold, as taught by Taylor, to determine the floor type, because this arrangement improves cleaning performance, and the measurement of current provides for a consistent measurement of floor type. The modification would have resulted in measuring values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor, comparing value to at least a first threshold, and transitioning the surface treatment apparatus between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison, as Taylor uses the measured current compared to a threshold to switch the floor state of the vacuum cleaner, depending on the floor type.
Kajiwara, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that the floor surface type can be detected based on vacuum cleaner current measurements ([0118]), and that measurements should be detected at predetermined time intervals to avoid delays in making decisions and to avoid overloading the processing capacity of the vacuum cleaner ([0133]), while also making the decisions when enough samples are received at a predetermined number of samples, to avoid having a wasted result, and for reliable judgment ([0134]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of taking measurements at predetermined time intervals, and making decisions when a predetermined number of samples are reached, as taught by Kajiwara, because of taking measurements at predetermined time intervals avoids delays in making decisions, and prevents overloading the processing capacity, and making the decisions when enough samples are received at a predetermined number of samples, to avoid having a wasted result, and for reliable judgment. The modification would have resulted in measuring a plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval, as a predetermined number of measurements taken at a predetermined interval would have resulted in a predetermined time window of the number of measurements multiplied by the interval between measurements.
As for the limitations of determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, Koharagi, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of using a mean [average] value of the agitator motor over a predetermined period (page 19 lines 10-15) together with the fluctuation of the measurement allows the accurate determination of the floor type (page 18 lines 9-15). Koharagi teaches that allows the most suitable cleaning action to be determined (page 5 lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of a mean [average] value of the agitator motor over a predetermined period (together with the fluctuation of the measurement) for the purpose of accurate determination of the floor type, as taught by Koharagi. This modification would have resulted in, at least, determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, when applied with the teachings of Taylor, of comparing measured current to a threshold, and of Kajiwara, of taking a predetermined number of measurements taken at a predetermined interval.
As for the limitations that the first threshold is being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, as previously mentioned, Tondra discloses of sensing agitator motor current (Tondra, [0029]) and that a current threshold for the agitator motor would be different depending on nozzle/agitator height (Tondra, [0029]; “microprocessor 810 can be programmed with a current setting for each suction nozzle height 100 position”) and Taylor teaches that measuring the current of the agitator, provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance (Taylor, [0019-0021]). Getz, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that the floor resistance changes with different height settings of the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25, showing the changes with height for a bare floor in fig. 5 and a shag carpet in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, to have based the first threshold is being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, as Taylor demonstrates that current thresholds should be based on the height of the agitator, Getz demonstrates that the floor resistance changes depending on the height/engagement distance and floor type, and Taylor demonstrates that the floor type is compared to a threshold that is based on a measurement of floor resistance. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to base the first threshold on the engagement distance [height] of the agitator, as it is demonstrated from the prior art that the engagement distance has an effect on floor resistance, and since the floor resistance used to determine the floor type, as person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using the teachings from the prior art, would have found that basing the first threshold on the engagement distance would result in a more consistent floor type determination, by avoiding variations in the resistance caused by changes in height of the agitator.
Regarding, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold, Tondra further teaches of multiple agitator heights depending on the type of carpet ([0018]), and Getz teaches that the type of carpet, in terms of pile height, has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25). Johnson (US 5467502 A), in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that “It is well known in the art that for cleaning carpet, the preferred height of the agitator brush 34 is directly related to the height of the carpet pile. The agitator brush 34 should be higher when cleaning a high pile or deep shag carpet than when cleaning a low pile carpet” (col 7 lines 33-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, to have determined a carpet on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, and have adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold, with the application of Johnson to have a preferred height setting for different carpet pile heights. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, applying Getz, would provide the secondary threshold to detect different carpet types since the pile height has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator.
With respect to claim 22, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 21 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold, the average being compared to the first threshold when the surface treatment apparatus is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the surface treatment apparatus is operating in the second operational mode, the first threshold being different from the second threshold, and the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold.
Taylor further teaches of providing a threshold range, in which the cleaner would not change modes while in the range ([0050, 0086]; the range providing both a first and second threshold, instead of a single threshold point). Taylor teaches that this allows the vacuum cleaner to tolerate fluctuations while on a single surface type.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Taylor of providing a threshold range, for the purpose of better tolerating fluctuations in measurements on a single surface type. The modification would have resulted in wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold (as the average would be compared to the higher and lower end of the range, providing two threshold), the average being compared to the first threshold when the surface treatment apparatus is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the surface treatment apparatus is operating in the second operational mode (average would be compared to [at least] two thresholds in both modes, as a range, to determine whether to change the power level) the first threshold being different from the second threshold (the range provides for two different thresholds).
As for the limitation regarding “the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold”, Getz, as previously noted, teaches that the type of carpet, in terms of pile height, has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25), and the teachings of Johnson are that it is preferable for different agitator heights with different carpet types depending on pile height (col 7 lines 33-48).. As Taylor teaches of using the threshold range to transition between the two operational modes [hard floor and carpet], with the application of the teachings of Getz and Johnson, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary kill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold, to have provided different thresholds for increase carpet height and resistance, to enable preferable adjustment to accommodate different pile heights.
With respect to claim 23, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 22 above, and further teaches when the surface treatment apparatus is in the first operational mode, if the average measures greater than the first threshold the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the second operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 22 above, so if the average measures more than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a second mode], if within the range it doesn’t change; the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
With respect to claim 24, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 22 above, and further wherein, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, if the average measures less than the second threshold the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the first operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 22 above, therefore if the average measures less than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a first mode], the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
With respect to claim 25, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 22 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of predetermined time windows, the plurality of predetermined time windows forming a window group, and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval.
Taylor further teaches of continuing to monitor the load of an agitator and making adjustments to adapt to changing circumstances, rather than adapting once ([0017]), and that the agitator load can be monitored periodically to improve the response time ([0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Taylor continued measurement, to adapt to changing circumstances, and periodic measurements to improve the response time of determining the floor type. wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of predetermined time windows, the plurality of predetermined time windows forming a window group, and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval, through the continued/repeated measurements (resulting in a plurality predetermined [periodic] of time windows with corresponding measurements, the predetermined time windows forming a group [with otherwise undefined limits as to what is in the group] as the time windows are correlated with each other in determining as to whether there is a change in floor type), when the teachings of Taylor are applied to the determination of a surface type explained in the rejection of claim 21 above.
With respect to claim 26, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25 above, and further teaches wherein determining the average further includes determining a plurality of average values, each of the plurality of average values corresponding to a respective predetermined time window (as explained in the rejection of claim 25 above, the continued measurements would result in the measurement process of claim 21 being repeated, resulting in a plurality of average a plurality of average values corresponding to a respective predetermined time window).
With respect to claim 28, Tondra discloses:
A vacuum cleaner comprising: a surface cleaning head having an agitator (agitator [not shown] is contained in foot 100, fig. 2, [0015]);
a dust cup fluidly coupled to the surface cleaning head (350, fig. 2; [0017] coupled through dirt duct to motor M2, and as part of dirt collection system M3, shown in fig. 2, and described in [0016-0017] with ducting);
a suction motor fluidly coupled to the surface cleaning head (m2, fig. 2; [0016]).;
an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate (agitator drive motor M1, fig .2, [0016])
an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned (agitator is contained in foot 100, fig .2 as in [0015], and the foot 100 is adjusted by a height adjustment motor M3, fig .2; [0016], which adjusts the height of nozzle/foot 100 relative to the floor, which would be understood to cause the agitator height to adjusted); and
a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to the surface to be cleaned and to transition the surface treatment apparatus between a first operational mode corresponding to a hard floor type and a second operational mode corresponding to a carpet floor type based, at least in part, on the determined surface type (a sensor is connected to a processor 810, fig. 4 [controller] and transitions between modes [from/to a hard floor mode/carpet mode] when the cleaner is moved from a bare floor as in [0018-0019]; see also claim 10 of the publication), wherein transitioning operational modes includes causing the agitator height adjuster to adjust the engagement distance ([0018-0019]) wherein determining the surface type includes:
determining the engagement distance (potentiometer P21, fig .4 inputs the position and height of nozzle 100; [0019]); however, does explicitly teach measuring a plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval; determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, the first threshold being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance; and transitioning the vacuum cleaner between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison,
the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold.
Tondra further discloses of sensing agitator motor current ([0029]) and that a current threshold for the agitator motor would be different depending on nozzle/agitator height ([0029] different; “microprocessor 810 can be programmed with a current setting for each suction nozzle height 100 position”).
Taylor, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of wherein determining the floor surface type includes measuring the current of the agitator and comparison to a first threshold (the vacuum cleaner switches between two modes, a hard floor mode, and a carpet mode, as in [0014-0015]; the current draw compared with a [first] threshold to determine what floor surface type the vacuum cleaner is on as in [0019-0020], the current draw related to the resistance of the floor and type of floor surface as in [0020]). Taylor teaches that this arrangement improves cleaning performance by adjusting the suction motor power depending on the floor type ([0009]), and that measuring the current of the agitator, instead of power draw provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance and is not susceptible to other measurements such as the power draw, providing for consistent measurements ([0019-0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of measuring current of the agitator motor, and comparison to a first threshold, as taught by Taylor, to determine the floor type, because this arrangement improves cleaning performance, and the measurement of current provides for a consistent measurement of floor type. The modification would have resulted in measuring values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor, comparing value to at least a first threshold, and transitioning the vacuum cleaner between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison, as Taylor uses the measured current compared to a threshold to switch the floor state of the vacuum cleaner, depending on the floor type.
Kajiwara, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that the floor surface type can be detected based on vacuum cleaner current measurements ([0118]), and that measurements should be detected at predetermined time intervals to avoid delays in making decisions and to avoid overloading the processing capacity of the vacuum cleaner ([0133]), while also making the decisions when enough samples are received at a predetermined number of samples, to avoid having a wasted result, and for reliable judgment ([0134]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of taking measurements at predetermined time intervals, and making decisions when a predetermined number of samples are reached, as taught by Kajiwara, because of taking measurements at predetermined time intervals avoids delays in making decisions, and prevents overloading the processing capacity, and making the decisions when enough samples are received at a predetermined number of samples, to avoid having a wasted result, and for reliable judgment. The modification would have resulted in measuring a plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval, as a predetermined number of measurements taken at a predetermined interval would have resulted in a predetermined time window of the number of measurements multiplied by the interval between measurements.
As for the limitations of determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, Koharagi, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of using a mean [average] value of the agitator motor over a predetermined period (page 19 lines 10-15) together with the fluctuation of the measurement allows the accurate determination of the floor type (page 18 lines 9-15). Koharagi teaches that allows the most suitable cleaning action to be determined (page 5 lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of a mean [average] value of the agitator motor over a predetermined period (together with the fluctuation of the measurement) for the purpose of accurate determination of the floor type, as taught by Koharagi. This modification would have resulted in, at least, determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, when applied with the teachings of Taylor, of comparing measured current to a threshold, and of Kajiwara, of taking a predetermined number of measurements taken at a predetermined interval.
As for the limitations that the first threshold is being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, as previously mentioned, Tondra discloses of sensing agitator motor current (Tondra, [0029]) and that a current threshold for the agitator motor would be different depending on nozzle/agitator height (Tondra, [0029]; “microprocessor 810 can be programmed with a current setting for each suction nozzle height 100 position”) and Taylor teaches that measuring the current of the agitator, provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance (Taylor, [0019-0021]). Getz, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that the floor resistance changes with different height settings of the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25, showing the changes with height for a bare floor in fig. 5 and a shag carpet in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, to have based the first threshold is being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, as Taylor demonstrates that current thresholds should be based on the height of the agitator, Getz demonstrates that the floor resistance changes depending on the height/engagement distance and floor type, and Taylor demonstrates that the floor type is compared to a threshold that is based on a measurement of floor resistance. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to base the first threshold on the engagement distance [height] of the agitator, as it is demonstrated from the prior art that the engagement distance has an effect on floor resistance, and since the floor resistance used to determine the floor type, as person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using the teachings from the prior art, would have found that basing the first threshold on the engagement distance would result in a more consistent floor type determination, by avoiding variations in the resistance caused by changes in height of the agitator.
Regarding, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold, Tondra further teaches of multiple agitator heights depending on the type of carpet ([0018]), and Getz teaches that the type of carpet, in terms of pile height, has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25). Johnson (US 5467502 A), in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that “It is well known in the art that for cleaning carpet, the preferred height of the agitator brush 34 is directly related to the height of the carpet pile. The agitator brush 34 should be higher when cleaning a high pile or deep shag carpet than when cleaning a low pile carpet” (col 7 lines 33-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, to have determined a carpet on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, and have adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold, with the application of Johnson to have a preferred height setting for different carpet pile heights. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, applying Getz, would provide the secondary threshold to detect different carpet types since the pile height has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator.
With respect to claim 29, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 28 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold, the average being compared to the first threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the second operational mode, the first threshold being different from the second threshold, and the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold.
Taylor further teaches of providing a threshold range, in which the cleaner would not change modes while in the range ([0050, 0086]; the range providing both a first and second threshold, instead of a single threshold point). Taylor teaches that this allows the vacuum cleaner to tolerate fluctuations while on a single surface type.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Taylor of providing a threshold range, for the purpose of better tolerating fluctuations in measurements on a single surface type. The modification would have resulted in wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold (as the average would be compared to the higher and lower end of the range, providing two threshold), the average being compared to the first threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the second operational mode (average would be compared to [at least] two thresholds in both modes, as a range, to determine whether to change the power level) the first threshold being different from the second threshold (the range provides for two different thresholds).
As for the limitation regarding “the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold”, Getz, as previously noted, teaches that the type of carpet, in terms of pile height, has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25), and the teachings of Johnson are that it is preferable for different agitator heights with different carpet types depending on pile height (col 7 lines 33-48).. As Taylor teaches of using the threshold range to transition between the two operational modes [hard floor and carpet], with the application of the teachings of Getz and Johnson, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary kill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold, to have provided different thresholds for increase carpet height and resistance, to enable preferable adjustment to accommodate different pile heights.
With respect to claim 30, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29 above, and further teaches when the vacuum cleaner is in the first operational mode, if the average measures greater than the first threshold the vacuum cleaner transitions to the second operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 29 above, so if the average measures more than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a second mode], if within the range it doesn’t change; the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
With respect to claim 31, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29 above, and further wherein, when the vacuum cleaner is in the second operational mode, if the average measures less than the second threshold the vacuum cleaner transitions to the first operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 29 above, therefore if the average measures less than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a first mode], the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
With respect to claim 32, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of predetermined time windows, the plurality of predetermined time windows forming a window group, and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval.
Taylor further teaches of continuing to monitor the load of an agitator and making adjustments to adapt to changing circumstances, rather than adapting once ([0017]), and that the agitator load can be monitored periodically to improve the response time ([0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Taylor continued measurement, to adapt to changing circumstances, and periodic measurements to improve the response time of determining the floor type. wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of predetermined time windows, the plurality of predetermined time windows forming a window group, and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval, through the continued/repeated measurements (resulting in a plurality predetermined [periodic] of time windows with corresponding measurements, the predetermined time windows forming a group [with otherwise undefined limits as to what is in the group] as the time windows are correlated with each other in determining as to whether there is a change in floor type), when the teachings of Taylor are applied to the determination of a surface type explained in the rejection of claim 28 above.
With respect to claim 33, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 32 above, and further teaches wherein determining the average further includes determining a plurality of average values, each of the plurality of average values corresponding to a respective predetermined time window (as explained in the rejection of claim 32 above, the continued measurements would result in the measurement process of claim 28 being repeated, resulting in a plurality of average a plurality of average values corresponding to a respective predetermined time window).
With respect to claim 35, Tondra discloses:
A surface treatment apparatus comprising: a surface cleaning head having an agitator (agitator [not shown] is contained in foot 100, fig. 2, [0015]);
an agitator motor configured to cause the agitator to rotate (agitator drive motor M1, fig .2, [0016])
an agitator height adjuster configured to adjust an engagement distance between the agitator and a surface to be cleaned (agitator is contained in foot 100, fig .2 as in [0015], and the foot 100 is adjusted by a height adjustment motor M3, fig .2; [0016], which adjusts the height of nozzle/foot 100 relative to the floor, which would be understood to cause the agitator height to adjusted); and
a controller configured to determine a surface type corresponding to the surface to be cleaned and to transition the surface treatment apparatus between a first operational mode corresponding to a hard floor type and a second operational mode corresponding to a carpet floor type based, at least in part, on the determined surface type (a sensor is connected to a processor 810, fig. 4 [controller] and transitions between modes [from/to a hard floor mode/carpet mode] when the cleaner is moved from a bare floor as in [0018-0019]; see also claim 10 of the publication), wherein transitioning operational modes includes causing the agitator height adjuster to adjust the engagement distance ([0018-0019]), wherein determining the surface type includes:
determining the engagement distance (potentiometer P21, fig .4 inputs the position and height of nozzle 100; [0019]); however, does explicitly disclose measuring a plurality of values corresponding to one or more parameters of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval; determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, the first threshold being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance; and transitioning the surface treatment apparatus between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison,
the controller is further configured to, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold.
Tondra further discloses of sensing agitator motor current ([0029]; agitator motor current is a motor parameter) and that a current threshold for the agitator motor would be different depending on nozzle/agitator height ([0029] different; “microprocessor 810 can be programmed with a current setting for each suction nozzle height 100 position”).
Taylor, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of wherein determining the floor surface type includes measuring the current of the agitator and comparison to a first threshold (the vacuum cleaner switches between two modes, a hard floor mode, and a carpet mode, as in [0014-0015]; the current draw [a motor parameter of the agitator] compared with a [first] threshold to determine what floor surface type the vacuum cleaner is on as in [0019-0020], the current draw related to the resistance of the floor and type of floor surface as in [0020]). Taylor teaches that this arrangement improves cleaning performance by adjusting the suction motor power depending on the floor type ([0009]), and that measuring the current of the agitator, instead of power draw provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance and is not susceptible to other measurements such as the power draw, providing for consistent measurements ([0019-0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of measuring current of the agitator motor, and comparison to a first threshold, as taught by Taylor, to determine the floor type, because this arrangement improves cleaning performance, and the measurement of current provides for a consistent measurement of floor type. The modification would have resulted in measuring values corresponding to a current draw [one or more motor parameters] of the agitator motor, comparing value to at least a first threshold, and transitioning the surface treatment apparatus between the operational modes based, at least in part, on the comparison, as Taylor uses the measured current compared to a threshold to switch the floor state of the vacuum cleaner, depending on the floor type.
Kajiwara, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that the floor surface type can be detected based on vacuum cleaner current measurements ([0118]), and that measurements should be detected at predetermined time intervals to avoid delays in making decisions and to avoid overloading the processing capacity of the vacuum cleaner ([0133]), while also making the decisions when enough samples are received at a predetermined number of samples, to avoid having a wasted result, and for reliable judgment ([0134]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of taking measurements at predetermined time intervals, and making decisions when a predetermined number of samples are reached, as taught by Kajiwara, because of taking measurements at predetermined time intervals avoids delays in making decisions, and prevents overloading the processing capacity, and making the decisions when enough samples are received at a predetermined number of samples, to avoid having a wasted result, and for reliable judgment. The modification would have resulted in measuring a plurality of values corresponding to a current draw of the agitator motor over a predetermined time window at a predetermined time interval, as a predetermined number of measurements taken at a predetermined interval would have resulted in a predetermined time window of the number of measurements multiplied by the interval between measurements.
As for the limitations of determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, Koharagi, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of using a mean [average] value of the agitator motor over a predetermined period (page 19 lines 10-15) together with the fluctuation of the measurement allows the accurate determination of the floor type (page 18 lines 9-15). Koharagi teaches that allows the most suitable cleaning action to be determined (page 5 lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of a mean [average] value of the agitator motor over a predetermined period (together with the fluctuation of the measurement) for the purpose of accurate determination of the floor type, as taught by Koharagi. This modification would have resulted in, at least, determining an average corresponding to the measured values; comparing the average to at least a first threshold, when applied with the teachings of Taylor, of comparing measured current to a threshold, and of Kajiwara, of taking a predetermined number of measurements taken at a predetermined interval.
As for the limitations that the first threshold is being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, as previously mentioned, Tondra discloses of sensing agitator motor current (Tondra, [0029]) and that a current threshold for the agitator motor would be different depending on nozzle/agitator height (Tondra, [0029]; “microprocessor 810 can be programmed with a current setting for each suction nozzle height 100 position”) and Taylor teaches that measuring the current of the agitator, provides an easy interpretation of floor resistance (Taylor, [0019-0021]). Getz, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that the floor resistance changes with different height settings of the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25, showing the changes with height for a bare floor in fig. 5 and a shag carpet in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, to have based the first threshold is being based, at least in part, on the engagement distance, as Taylor demonstrates that current thresholds should be based on the height of the agitator, Getz demonstrates that the floor resistance changes depending on the height/engagement distance and floor type, and Taylor demonstrates that the floor type is compared to a threshold that is based on a measurement of floor resistance. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to base the first threshold on the engagement distance [height] of the agitator, as it is demonstrated from the prior art that the engagement distance has an effect on floor resistance, and since the floor resistance used to determine the floor type, as person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using the teachings from the prior art, would have found that basing the first threshold on the engagement distance would result in a more consistent floor type determination, by avoiding variations in the resistance caused by changes in height of the agitator.
Regarding, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, determine a carpet type based, at least in part, on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, wherein the height adjuster is configured to further adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold, Tondra further teaches of multiple agitator heights depending on the type of carpet ([0018]), and Getz teaches that the type of carpet, in terms of pile height, has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25). Johnson (US 5467502 A), in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches that “It is well known in the art that for cleaning carpet, the preferred height of the agitator brush 34 is directly related to the height of the carpet pile. The agitator brush 34 should be higher when cleaning a high pile or deep shag carpet than when cleaning a low pile carpet” (col 7 lines 33-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, to have determined a carpet on a comparison of the average to a secondary threshold, and have adjust the engagement distance based, at least in part, on the comparison to the secondary threshold, with the application of Johnson to have a preferred height setting for different carpet pile heights. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, applying Getz, would provide the secondary threshold to detect different carpet types since the pile height has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator.
With respect to claim 36, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold, the average being compared to the first threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the second operational mode, the first threshold being different from the second threshold, and the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold.
Taylor further teaches of providing a threshold range, in which the cleaner would not change modes while in the range ([0050, 0086]; the range providing both a first and second threshold, instead of a single threshold point). Taylor teaches that this allows the vacuum cleaner to tolerate fluctuations while on a single surface type.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Taylor of providing a threshold range, for the purpose of better tolerating fluctuations in measurements on a single surface type. The modification would have resulted in wherein the average is compared to a respective one of the first threshold or a second threshold (as the average would be compared to the higher and lower end of the range, providing two threshold), the average being compared to the first threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the first operational mode and the average being compared to the second threshold when the vacuum cleaner is operating in the second operational mode (average would be compared to [at least] two thresholds in both modes, as a range, to determine whether to change the power level) the first threshold being different from the second threshold (the range provides for two different thresholds).
As for the limitation regarding “the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold”, Getz, as previously noted, teaches that the type of carpet, in terms of pile height, has an effect on the resistance encountered by the agitator (col 3 line 64 to col 4 line 25), and the teachings of Johnson are that it is preferable for different agitator heights with different carpet types depending on pile height (col 7 lines 33-48).. As Taylor teaches of using the threshold range to transition between the two operational modes [hard floor and carpet], with the application of the teachings of Getz and Johnson, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary kill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the secondary threshold being greater than the second threshold, to have provided different thresholds for increase carpet height and resistance, to enable preferable adjustment to accommodate different pile heights.
With respect to claim 37, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 36 above, and further teaches when the surface treatment apparatus is in the first operational mode, if the average measures greater than the first threshold the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the second operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 36 above, so if the average measures more than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a second mode], if within the range it doesn’t change; the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
With respect to claim 38, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 36 above, and further wherein, when the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, if the average measures less than the second threshold the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the first operational mode (Taylor, [0050, 0086], teaches of the range, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 36 above, therefore if the average measures less than the upper limit of the range, the vacuum cleaner transitions operational modes [to a first mode], the two points where the vacuum cleaner transitions modes, being an upper and limit are different).
With respect to claim 39, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 36 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of predetermined time windows, and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval.
Taylor further teaches of continuing to monitor the load of an agitator and making adjustments to adapt to changing circumstances, rather than adapting once ([0017]), and that the agitator load can be monitored periodically to improve the response time ([0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Taylor continued measurement, to adapt to changing circumstances, and periodic measurements to improve the response time of determining the floor type. The modification would have resulted in wherein measuring further includes measuring over a plurality of time windows, and wherein the plurality of values corresponding to the current draw are measured for each predetermined time window at the predetermined time interval, through the continued/repeated measurements (resulting in a plurality predetermined [periodic] of time windows with corresponding measurements), when the teachings of Taylor are applied to the determination of a surface type explained in the rejection of claim 35 above.
With respect to claim 40, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 39 above, and further teaches wherein determining the average further includes determining a plurality of average values, each of the plurality of average values corresponding to a respective predetermined time window (as explained in the rejection of claim 39 above, the continued measurements would result in the measurement process of claim 35 being repeated, resulting in a plurality of average a plurality of average values corresponding to a respective predetermined time window).
Claim(s) 27 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra (US 20060130270 A1) in view of Taylor (US 20210059492 A1), Kajiwara (JP 2003290101 A), Koharagi (EP 0458057 B1), Getz (US 4706327 A) and Johnson (US 5467502 A) and further in view of Norell (US 20100083462 A1).
With respect to claim 27, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 26 above, however does not explicitly teach when all of the average values within the window group measures less than the second threshold and the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the first operational mode.
Norell, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, of keeping a count of consecutive current measurements of a motor and only changing the state when a count of consecutive measurements [the consecutive total count forming a defined window group] cross a threshold ([0132]). Norell teaches this helps debounce the measurements ([0132]), and that debouncing measurements helps ensure that the signal is legitimate ([0130]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Norell, to require consecutive measurements of current to cross a threshold, in order to ensure the signal is legitimate (and also prevent changing mode based on erroneous readings). This modification would have resulted in when all of the average values within the window group measures less than the second threshold and the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode (applying Norrell all of a plurality or count of consecutive readings [at least two or more values], crosses the threshold to transition to the first mode), the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the first operational mode.
With respect to claim 34, Tondra, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 33 above, however does not explicitly when all of the average values within the window group measures less than the second threshold and the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode, the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the first operational mode.
Norell, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, of keeping a count of consecutive current measurements of a motor and only changing the state when a count of consecutive measurements [the consecutive total count forming a defined window group] cross a threshold ([0132]). Norell teaches this helps debounce the measurements ([0132]), and that debouncing measurements helps ensure that the signal is legitimate ([0130]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tondra, with the teachings of Norell, to require consecutive measurements of current to cross a threshold, in order to ensure the signal is legitimate (and also prevent changing mode based on erroneous readings). This modification would have resulted in when all of the average values within the window group measures less than the second threshold and the surface treatment apparatus is in the second operational mode (applying Norrell all of a plurality or count of consecutive readings [at least two or more values], crosses the threshold to transition to the first mode), the surface treatment apparatus transitions to the first operational mode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments directed towards Tondra (response page 8-10), the applicant takes the position that the examiner failed to take into account Tondra as a whole, particularly pointing out that the examiner has only pointed to a single sentence of the disclosure, instead of considering the disclosure as a whole, and that the remainder of the paragraph in which the sentence is found undermines the rest of the office action. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the positions of the rejection cite other parts of Tondra. In regards to Tondra’s use of switches for the user to input the floor type, and Tondra’s silence regarding the sensor, the examiner’s position is that this leaves Tondra open to the use of other types of floor type detection methods as well, including the use of agitator current to switch modes based on floor type, which is demonstrated by the secondary references applied in the rejection. As noted by the applicant, Tondra provides for a sensor used to detect floor type ([0019]), and as previously noted, Tondra also provides for current measurement that is dependent on agitator height ([0029]). This teaching, combined with the teachings of Taylor with regards to how motor current is used to detect floor type, and to switch the mode of the vacuum cleaner, of Kaijwara with regards to taking multiple current readings for a more reliable detection of floor types, Kohragi of averaging motor readings, Taylor of how agitator height and pile height affects the resistance of the floor, and Johnson of how the vacuum cleaner should have multiple heights for different types of carpets renders the claim obvious, including for aspects of switching the mode of the vacuum cleaner depending on floor type. Regarding the specifics of a determination of a carpet type, Getz teaches that the carpet pile height [which differs between carpet types] has a different floor resistance, and Johnson provides that it is preferred to provide different agitator heights depending on carpet type and pile height, and the examiner submits that these teachings render the claim obvious.
No specific arguments were directed towards the dependent claims.
Regarding double patenting (response page 16-18), the examiner respectfully submits that arguments presented against obviousness-type double patenting were addressed in examiner’s response to the prior art 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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 on 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723