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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6,10-14 and 16-21 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 14 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
With respect to claim 5, consider -- wherein [[the]] a guide ramp is arranged at a front of the transfer chamber--.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“suction device” in claim 1, 14, and 19, corresponding to suction device 2 or equivalents thereof
“cleaning liquid supply unit” in claim 1, including cleaning liquid supply tank 3, a first liquid pump 44, a second liquid pump 45, a control unit 46 controlling the operation of the first liquid pump 44 and the second liquid pump 45, a first cleaning liquid dispenser 42 comprising a plurality of first outlet holes 421 and a second cleaning liquid dispenser 43, or equivalents thereof
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“suction device” in claim 21 recites sufficient structure, and is not interpreted under section 112(f);
“cleaning liquid supply unit” in claim 17 recites sufficient structure, and is not interpreted under section 112(f);
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) 1, 2, 3, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2005027807 A) in view of Lee (EP 3130271 A1) and Yahbrough (US 20120151710 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2(1) (Hirose)
With respect to claim 1, Hirose discloses: A surface cleaning machine, comprising:
a suction device capable of providing a suction force (electric blower 11a, fig. 1; [0018], 112(f) equivalent as it generates a vacuum/suction and draws air)
a cleaning base adapted to move on a surface to be cleaned and comprising a cleaning roller capable of rotation (cleaning base 12, fig. 1; with roller [rotary wiper] 21, fig. 2; [0015]);
a cleaning liquid supply unit (mist generating portion 22, fig. 1; 112(f) equivalent as a device to supply water for cleaning; [0015]);
a second suction path (path 17, fig. 1; the transfer chamber 23 is connected to connected through extension pipe 17 into recovery tank 14 as in [0015-0016]) and
a dirty liquid recovery tank being in fluid communication with the suction device (dust collecting part 14, fig. 1; dust is sucked into the tank 14 as in [0015], tank is capable of holding/recovering liquid if sucked in);
wherein the cleaning base further comprises a transfer chamber adjacent to a rear side of the cleaning roller and capable of temporarily holding a solid-liquid mixture (transfer chamber 23, fig. 2; [0015], can functionally hold liquids and solids), and the transfer chamber is configured to be in fluid communication with the suction device to enable the surface cleaning machine to transfer at least part of the liquid or at least part of the solid-liquid mixture in the transfer chamber to the dirty liquid recovery tank by means of the suction device during performing a surface cleaning operation (the transfer chamber 23 connected to blower/suction device 11 as in [0018], and connected through extension pipe 17 into recovery tank 14 as in [0015-0016]), wherein the second suction path is a second pipe that connects the dirty liquid recovery tank and the transfer chamber (the transfer chamber 23 is connected to connected through extension pipe 17 into recovery tank 14 as in [0015-0016]),
wherein the transfer chamber includes a bottom wall and a circumferential side wall surrounding the bottom wall (Hirose, ann. fig. 2(1), above, has a circumferential side wall “surrounding” a bottom wall defined as the inside of the transfer chamber, [bottom is a relative orientation depending on how the device is held] consistent with the shape of the transfer chamber in instant fig. 2)
wherein the transfer chamber is provided with at least one suction port on the bottom wall or a lower portion of the circumferential side wall (Hirose, suction port at connection to part 25, fig. 2b; [0015]), and wherein the suction port is in fluid communication with the dirty liquid recovery tan (Hirose, through extension pipe 17, [0015-0016] using electric blower 11a, fig. 1, in [0018]).
Hirose does not explicitly disclose a first suction path, wherein the first suction path is a first pipe that connects the suction device and the dirty liquid recovery tank, wherein a capacity of the dirty liquid recovery tank is more than 3 times a capacity of the transfer chamber.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that collection containers are heavier and larger when higher in capacity, however, the capacity is important for the run time of the machine ([0008]).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical.
As it has been demonstrated that the size of a tank/chamber is a result effective variable, as it affects the run time of the machine and it’s weight and size, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected appropriate sizes for the transfer chamber and the dirty liquid recovery tank, including one where a capacity of the dirty liquid recovery tank is more than 3 times greater than a capacity of the transfer chamber, in order to balance the run time of the machine as well as its size and weight.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made a capacity of the dirty liquid recovery tank more than 3 times greater than a capacity of the transfer chamber as a change in relative dimensions between the dirty liquid recovery tank and the transfer chamber.
Regarding a first suction path, wherein the first suction path is a first pipe that connects the suction device and the dirty liquid recovery tank, Yahbrough in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, provides for a first suction path (pipe 42, fig. 1; [0022]) between dirty liquid recovery tank (18, fig. 1, [0021], examiner notes that this can contain sucked in liquid) and a suction device (10, fig. 1; [0021]), also providing a second suction path into the recovery tank (hose 22 into inlet 26 of tank, as shown in fig. 1; [0021]). Yahbrough teaches that it is important for cleaners to provide effective separation [filtration] to reduce health hazards from fine debris, and to prevent vacuums from clogging ([0003]) and that this is part of an arrangement allows unclogging trapped debris without stopping the motor to maintain the flow ([0006,0021,0023]; examiner notes that in Hirose, [0015], the recovery tank 14 separates debris and Hirose [0018] provides that the section motor needs to generate a large pressure).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the arrangement of Yahborugh, with a recovery tank (with a second suction path leading to the tank), and including a first suction path, wherein the first suction path is a first pipe that connects the suction device and the dirty liquid recovery tank, into Hirose, using the teachings of Yahbrough for the purpose of enabling unclogging to maintain the flow in the cleaner, given that it is important to maintain effective separation/filtration to reduce health hazards from debris,
With respect to claim 2, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the transfer chamber comprises an input port for the solid-liquid mixture to enter therein, and wherein the input port is adjacent to the cleaning roller (Hirose, at air inlet door 27, fig. 2 which can be opened, as shown in fig. 2(b), or closed as shown in fig. 2(a), [0015]).
With respect to claim 3, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches: wherein the transfer chamber is at least partially located below an axis of rotation of the cleaning roller (Hirose, fig. 2 shows the bottom, relative to figure, of the transfer chamber 32, being lower than axis 21, see ann. fig. 2(1) above).
With respect to claim 20, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the cleaning base has an opening located in the lower portion and facing the surface to be cleaned (Hirose, opening proximate to end of arrow 30a, fig. 2, [0016], and can face a surface to be cleaned depending on how cleaner is oriented), and wherein the cleaning roller is at least partially arranged at the opening (Hirose, roller portion proximate to 20, fig. 2; [0017]).
With respect to claim 21, Hirose, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the suction device includes a suction motor (Hirose, electric blower 11a, fig. 1, is a motor that generates an air current, [0015]), the transfer chamber, the dirty liquid recovery tank and the suction motor are in sequential fluid communication (Hirose, [0015-0016] describe how an air current passes through chamber 23, then onward through hose 17 to recovery tank 14, with the blower causing air to move through tank 14; also see sequential arrangements in figs. 1 and 2) , and wherein the surface cleaning machine is constructed to pick up and transfer the dirty liquid and solid dirt from the surface to be cleaned to the transfer chamber by combined action of the suction motor and the rotating cleaning roller (Hirose, the machine can functionally transfer liquid to transfer chamber through air flow previously described, rotary wiper [roller] 21 also splashes up liquid as in [0017]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2005027807 A) in view of Lee (EP 3130271 A1) and Yahbrough (US 20120151710 A1) and further in view of Li (CN 205181257 U).
With respect to claim 5, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the guide ramp is arranged at a front of the transfer chamber.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of a cleaning base that comprises a guide ramp adjacent to the cleaning roller (ramp 240, next to roller 211, figs. 9-10; with a flexible front ramp 241, fig. 8; [0078]), the guide ramp is arranged at a front of the transfer chamber (arrangement shown next to chamber 230, fig. 4, see fig. 10 of Li as well). Li teaches that this arrangement is provided to “to improve the cleaning effect of the floor cleaner” ([0078]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Li, and have provided a guide ramp in front of the transfer chamber in Hirose, for the purpose of improving cleaning.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2005027807 A) in view of Lee (EP 3130271 A1) and Yahbrough (US 20120151710 A1) and further in view of Johnson (US 20200305672 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein an inner wall surface of the bottom wall is a sloping surface, and wherein the sloping surface has a lowest position at the suction port.
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of a transfer chamber (at 44, fig. 9; [0093], leads to a second collection area 48, fig. 9, [0093]) with a sloping surface that form a bottom wall (surface defining sump 156, [0099-0100]), with the lowest point at a suction port (suction port 158, [0099]). Johnson teaches that this arrangement traps large debris through a strainer ([0094]), and this two-stage arrangement can save power through mechanical collection (0005,0010]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Johnson, with wherein an inner wall surface of the bottom wall is a sloping surface, and wherein the sloping surface has a lowest position at the suction port, as part of a two-stage collection, because this arrangement saves power.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2005027807 A) in view of Lee (EP 3130271 A1) and Yahbrough (US 20120151710 A1) and further in view of Pruiett (US 20210169294 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning base comprises a detachable dirty liquid bin, and wherein the transfer chamber is formed within the dirty liquid bin. Hirose, however discloses that the transfer chamber can be detachable (Hirose, chamber 23 can be detachable as in [0020]).
Pruiett, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning (including vacuum cleaners as in [0076]), teaches of a detachable dirty liquid bin adjacent to a roller (94, figs. 10 and 12; near roller 92; [0101, 0108]; container could collect liquid; detachable as shown in fig. 20; [0155-0156]; it is noted that the chamber/bin has an opening proximate to 144 fig. 12 to collect waste from the roller), and wherein the transfer chamber is formed within the dirty liquid bin (chamber formed within [inside volume of] liquid bin). Pruiett teaches that removing the bin makes it easy to clean out ([0159]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Pruiett, and have a detachable dirty liquid bin in Hirose, to make it easier to clean out.
With respect to claim 12, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning base also comprises a scraping roller device, and wherein the scraping roller device is in contact with a portion of the cleaning roller to enable removing at least partially excess dirty liquid from the cleaning roller soaked by dirty liquid.
Pruiett, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning (including vacuum cleaners as in [0076]), teaches of a scraping roller device (140, fig. 13; [0112-0114], placed above a chamber 152, [0122]), and wherein the scraping roller device is in contact with a portion of the cleaning roller to enable removing at least partially of the excess dirty liquid from the cleaning roller soaked by the dirty liquid (through interference edge 142, fig. 13; [0113]). Pruiett teaches that this arrangement helps remove dirt and excess liquid from the brush roller ([0113]), and that the brush helps absorb liquid from the floor to leave a streak free floor ([0117]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Pruiett, and provide a scraping roller device, in Hirose, for the purpose of removing dirt and excess from the brush roller, and also with the brush roller absorbing liquid to leave a streak free floor (therefore, the scraping roller device ensures that the brush remains unsaturated with water and able to absorb liquid without having an excess on the floor).
With respect to claim 13, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the scraping roller device is arranged to be located above the transfer chamber so that the excess dirty liquid removed at least partially from the cleaning roller can be transferred by gravity to the transfer chamber (Pruiett, 140, fig. 13; [0112-0114], placed above a chamber 152, [0122], said placement would allow liquid to be transferred by gravity depending on the orientation of the cleaner and how it is moved around/operated/positioned - for example, the cleaner can be rotated 90 degrees so that liquid falls into the chamber by gravity)
With respect to claim 14, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the scraping roller device is provided with an airflow connection to the transfer chamber so that the excess dirty liquid removed at least partially from the cleaning roller can be transferred to the transfer chamber by means of the suction force of the suction device (Pruiett, 140, fig. 13; [0112-0114], placed above a chamber 152, [0122], and said positioning is an “airflow connection” as the scraping roller is not obstructed in a way to prevent air flow to the chamber 152, and placed consistent with the instant disclosure, this together with the teachings of Hirose of the transfer chamber 23 connected to blower/suction device 11 as in [0018], allows [at least some] excess dirty liquid removed at least partially from the cleaning roller can be transferred to the transfer chamber by the suction force of the suction device, given the air flow arrangement shown by the arrow in Hirose, fig. 2).
With respect to claim 16, Hirose, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the scraping roller device comprises at least one scraping member in contact with a portion of the cleaning roller, and wherein the scraping member extends at least partially parallel to an axis of rotation of the cleaning roller and interferes with a portion of the cleaning roller during rotation of the cleaning roller (Pruiett, interference edge 142, fig. 13; [0113], is a scraping member in contact with the cleaning roller, the member extends at least partially parallel to the axis of rotation of the cleaning roller and interferes with a portion of the cleaning roller during rotation of the cleaning roller, as it contacts the cleaning member and is parallel to the axis because it extends in a horizontal/vertical direction parallel to said axis).
With respect to claim 17, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the cleaning liquid supply unit comprises a cleaning liquid supply tank for holding a cleaning liquid (Hirose, 22a, fig. 1; [0015]) and a liquid dispenser provided on the cleaning base (Hirose, 22d, fig. 2; [0015]), and wherein the liquid dispenser constructed to deliver the cleaning liquid to the cleaning roller and/or the surface to be cleaned is in fluid communication with the cleaning liquid supply tank (Hirose, [0015], the liquid is dripped to a floor surface 13, fig. 2, [0015]).
With respect to claim 18, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 17 above, and further teaches wherein the liquid dispenser is constructed to deliver the cleaning liquid to the cleaning roller (Hirose, [0015], the liquid is dripped to a floor surface 13, fig. 2, [0015], and then the roller can be absorbed and wiped by roller 20, fig. 2 if the cleaning base is moved in a direction to have the liquid dispensed then wiped by the roller); and wherein the liquid dispenser is located downstream of the scraping roller device with respect to a direction of rotation of the cleaning roller so as to apply the cleaning liquid to the cleaning roller from which the excess dirty liquid is scraped (as the liquid is dispensed, and wiped by the roller, the scraping roller device can then scrape it off the wiping roller, which would occur in a downstream direction in terms of how the fluid moves; it is noted that the cleaning roller rolls as in Hirose, [0015] as a rotary roller driven by a motor).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2005027807 A) in view of Lee (EP 3130271 A1) Yahbrough (US 20120151710 A1) and Pruiett (US 20210169294 A1), and further in view of Krebs (US 20080216278 A1)
With respect to claim 19, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 17 above, and further teaches a body (Hirose, outer shell of 11, fig. 1, [0015]) and wherein the cleaning base is rotationally coupled to a lower portion of the body (Hirose, through hose 16, fig. 1, [0015], which provides for the cleaning base to be able to rotate in terms of movement relative to a lower portion of the body through flexibility), the suction device is fixed on the body (Hirose, placement of electric blower 11a; fig. 1 [0018]), and the dirty liquid recovery tank detachably mount on the body (Hirose, tank 14, fig. 1; [0015] is mounted on the body and can be detached, including irreversibly, from the rest of the body), and the cleaning liquid supply tank detachably mount on the body (the cleaning liquid supply tank is mounted on the cleaning base in Hirose, 22a, fig. 1; [0015], and is therefore directly/indirectly mounted on the body through hose 16, fig. 1, [0015], and can be irreversibly detached from the body) however does not explicitly teach with a body with a handle on a top. Hirose, however discloses that the cleaner can be used in dry mode without water/liquid (Hirose, [0019]).
Krebs, in the same field of endeavor, as related to cleaning, teaches of with a body with a handle on the top (36, fig. 5; [0054], on top as in figure). Krebs teaches that the handle provides a comfortable way for the user to carry the cleaner ([0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Krebs, and provide the body of Hirose with a handle on top, for the purpose of providing a comfortable way for the user to carry the cleaner.
Alternatively, regarding the cleaning liquid supply tank detachably mount on the body, Krebs further teaches of a removable cleaning liquid supply tank within the body (16, fig. 5, [0053-0054], for supply of liquid to a cleaning base through a hose 20, fig. 1 as in [0056]). Krebs teaches that this enables a tool caddy to be mounted during dry vacuum cleaning only, in place of the tank, thus saving weight as in [0065]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Krebs, and provide the body of Hirose with a detachably mounted cleaning liquid supply tank, in place of a tank on the cleaning base, because the detachable tank arrangement on the body saves weight by allowing a tool caddy to be used instead of the tank during dry vacuum cleaning.
Alternate ground of rejection as applied to claims 4 and 6.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2005027807 A) in view of Lee (EP 3130271 A1) Yahbrough (US 20120151710 A1) and further Li (CN 205181257 U).
PNG
media_image2.png
555
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2(2) (Hirose)
With respect to claim 4, Hirose, discloses [claim 1] A surface cleaning machine, comprising:
a suction device capable of providing a suction force (electric blower 11a, fig. 1; [0018], 112(f) equivalent as it generates a vacuum/suction and draws air)
a cleaning base adapted to move on a surface to be cleaned and comprising a cleaning roller capable of rotation (cleaning base 12, fig. 1; with roller [rotary wiper] 21, fig. 2; [0015]);
a cleaning liquid supply unit (mist generating portion 22, fig. 1; 112(f) equivalent as a device to supply water for cleaning; [0015]);
a second suction path (path 17, fig. 1; the transfer chamber 23 is connected to connected through extension pipe 17 into recovery tank 14 as in [0015-0016]) and
a dirty liquid recovery tank being in fluid communication with the suction device (dust collecting part 14, fig. 1; dust is sucked into the tank 14 as in [0015], tank is capable of holding/recovering liquid if sucked in);
wherein the cleaning base further comprises a transfer chamber adjacent to a rear side of the cleaning roller and capable of temporarily holding a solid-liquid mixture (transfer chamber 23, fig. 2; [0015], can functionally hold liquids and solids), and the transfer chamber is configured to be in fluid communication with the suction device to enable the surface cleaning machine to transfer at least part of the liquid or at least part of the solid-liquid mixture in the transfer chamber to the dirty liquid recovery tank by means of the suction device during performing a surface cleaning operation (the transfer chamber 23 connected to blower/suction device 11 as in [0018], and connected through extension pipe 17 into recovery tank 14 as in [0015-0016]), wherein the second suction path is a second pipe that connects the dirty liquid recovery tank and the transfer chamber (the transfer chamber 23 is connected to connected through extension pipe 17 into recovery tank 14 as in [0015-0016]),
wherein the transfer chamber includes a bottom wall and a circumferential side wall surrounding the bottom wall (Hirose, ann. fig. 2(2), above, has a circumferential side wall “surrounding” a bottom wall defined as the inside of the transfer chamber consistent with the shape of the transfer chamber in instant fig. 2, with the “surrounding” circumferential side wall simply adjacent to the bottom wall)
wherein the transfer chamber is provided with at least one suction port on the bottom wall or a lower portion of the circumferential side wall (Hirose, ann. fig. 2(2) above, suction port is on an edge of the bottom wall, arrow shown showing fluid transfer/suction) and wherein the suction port is in fluid communication with the dirty liquid recovery tank (Hirose, through extension pipe 17, [0015-0016] using electric blower 11a, fig. 1, in [0018]).
[claim 2] wherein the transfer chamber comprises an input port for the solid-liquid mixture to enter therein, and wherein the input port is adjacent to the cleaning roller (at 26a, leading to 26, fig. 2; [0015-0016])
Hirose does not explicitly disclose [claim 1] a first suction path, wherein the first suction path is a first pipe that connects the suction device and the dirty liquid recovery tank, wherein a capacity of the dirty liquid recovery tank is more than 3 times a capacity of the transfer chamber, and [claim 4] a guide ramp adjacent to the cleaning roller, and wherein the guide ramp has an upper end extending to the input port and the guide ramp has a lower end extending to a lower portion of the cleaning roller.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that collection containers are heavier and larger when higher in capacity, however, the capacity is important for the run time of the machine ([0008]).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical.
As it has been demonstrated that the size of a tank/chamber is a result effective variable, as it affects the run time of the machine and it’s weight and size, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected appropriate sizes for the transfer chamber and the dirty liquid recovery tank, including one where a capacity of the dirty liquid recovery tank is more than 3 times greater than a capacity of the transfer chamber, in order to balance the run time of the machine as well as its size and weight.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made a capacity of the dirty liquid recovery tank more than 3 times greater than a capacity of the transfer chamber as a change in relative dimensions between the dirty liquid recovery tank and the transfer chamber.
Regarding a first suction path, wherein the first suction path is a first pipe that connects the suction device and the dirty liquid recovery tank, Yahbrough in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, provides for a first suction path (pipe 42, fig. 1; [0022]) between dirty liquid recovery tank (18, fig. 1, [0021], examiner notes that this can contain sucked in liquid) and a suction device (10, fig. 1; [0021]), also providing a second suction path into the recovery tank (hose 22 into inlet 26 of tank, as shown in fig. 1; [0021]). Yahbrough teaches that it is important for cleaners to provide effective separation [filtration] to reduce health hazards from fine debris, and to prevent vacuums from clogging ([0003]) and that this is part of an arrangement allows unclogging trapped debris without stopping the motor to maintain the flow ([0006,0021,0023]; examiner notes that in Hirose, [0015], the recovery tank 14 separates debris and Hirose [0018] provides that the section motor needs to generate a large pressure).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the arrangement of Yahborugh, with a recovery tank (with a second suction path leading to the tank), and including a first suction path, wherein the first suction path is a first pipe that connects the suction device and the dirty liquid recovery tank, into Hirose, using the teachings of Yahbrough for the purpose of enabling unclogging to maintain the flow in the cleaner, given that it is important to maintain effective separation/filtration to reduce health hazards from debris,
As for the limitation of wherein the cleaning base comprises a guide ramp adjacent to the cleaning roller, and wherein the guide ramp has an upper end extending to the input port and the guide ramp has a lower end extending to a lower portion of the cleaning roller
Li, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of a cleaning base that comprises a guide ramp adjacent to the cleaning roller (ramp 240, next to roller 211, figs. 9-10; with a flexible front ramp 241, fig. 8; [0078]), and wherein the guide ramp has an upper end extending to the input port (upper end next to input port next to the entrance to chamber 230, fig. 4; [0073]) and a lower end extending to a lower portion of the cleaning roller (configuration shown in fig. 9). Li teaches that this arrangement is provided to “to improve the cleaning effect of the floor cleaner” ([0078]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Li, and have provided a guide ramp in Hirose, for the purpose of improving cleaning.
With respect to claim 6, Hirose, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein a lower end of the guide ramp is flexible (Li, ramp 240, with a flexible front ramp 241 [at a lower end], fig. 8; [0078]), and wherein the lower end of the guide ramp is at least partially pressed against the surface to be cleaned during a movement of the cleaning base over the surface to be cleaned (the guide ramp can be pressed against a surface, depending on the shape (for example if it is a uneven floor) of the unclaimed surface during movement of the cleaner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues (response pages 6-8) that the dust collecting part 14 (mapped to the dirty liquid recovery tank) in Hirose is for collecting dust, and is distinguished from the dirty liquid collection tank as the liquid is already separated in the separation tank 13 (mapped to the transfer chamber), and there is no teaching that the dust collecting part 14 can store liquid. The examiner respectfully disagrees, in that the physical structure of the dust collecting part 14 in Hirose can functionally store liquid, and the applicant has not shown how it would be unable, in any way to hold liquid (examiner submits as a further example, if the separation tank 13 is full, then liquid may be sucked up into the dust collection part 14). Applicant further argues that if the tank holds liquid, at most it holds a small amount, but the examiner notes that a small amount of liquid is still some amount of liquid.
Applicant did not specifically argue limitations of the dependent claims. Examiner notes that claims 4 and 6 require a new ground of rejection, as the specific combination of limitations of claim 7 and 8 together with claims 1, 2, and 4 were not previously addressed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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