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 1-33 are pending. Claims 2 and 18 are currently amended. Claim 33 is new.
The finality of the action dated 10/28/2025 is withdrawn and the after final submission dated 01/23/2026 is entered. This action is non-final.
Claim Objections
In claim 2, consider -- the first pivot axis and the direction vector defines[[ing]] the direction of advance--.
In claim 4, consider -- The floor cleaning device of claim 4, further comprising a support device, wherein the joint assembly is functionally assigned to [[a]] the support device which, in the maneuvering operating state, supports the guide member or the joint assembly with the first pivot joint relative to the floor unit or relative to the floor at least temporarily or/and at least partially--
In claim 10, consider -- The floor cleaning device of claim 5, further comprising a damper element, wherein [[a]] the damper element is assigned to the support device.--
In claim 11, consider -- The floor cleaning device of claim 4, further comprising a support device, wherein [[a]] the support device which is assigned to the first pivot range with its first pivot axis and is configured to at least partially support the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis with respect to the floor unit from a predetermined or predeterminable pivot angle--
In claim 12, consider -- The floor cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising a support device, wherein [[a]] the support device is configured to support or guide the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis with respect to the floor unit along an arcuate path--
In claim 21, consider -- The floor cleaning device of claim 5, further comprising a magnet, wherein [[a]] the magnet[[,]] is assigned to the support device and is configured to secure the support device during support against pivoting contrary to a support direction up to a limit force.--
In claim 29, consider --The floor cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising a support device, wherein [[a]] the support device is configured to fully lock the guide member with respect to the floor unit, so that pivoting about the first pivot axis and about a second pivot axis is blocked at least in a predetermined angular range--
In claim 33, consider --The floor cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the guide member comprises a handle, and [[a]] the direction of advance is a forward direction consistent with a movement of the floor unit occurring when a user pushes the handle--
With respect to 30-32, it has been determined that claim 30 (and thus claims 31 and 32) explicitly requires the device of claim 1. Should this not be the case, the applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to reflect the applicant’s interpretation. Should the applicant consider the floor cleaning device of claim 1 to be required, a system claim including the floor cleaning device and the support device, may be appropriate, and would provide further clarity.
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:
“guide member” in claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, corresponding to guide member 14.
“support device” in claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 ,19, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, corresponding to support device 90, 210 (claims 9, 31 and 32 contain sufficient structure to not invoke 112(f)).
“fastening device” in claim 26, corresponding to the description of “a rail as well as a latching device, each of which can be fastened in the predetermined fastening positions” and 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 14, 23, 24, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding (US 20180235425 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. Fig. 2 (Ding)
With respect to claim 1, Ding discloses: A floor cleaning device comprising:
a floor unit which is assigned a direction of advance parallel to a floor surface to be cleaned (14, fig. 1; [0026-0027], direction of advance is straight left in the direction of Y-Y in fig. 2),
a tool which is assigned to the floor unit and which, in an operating state, contacts the floor surface, the tool being movable relative to the floor surface by means of a drive (floor cleaning pad 30, fig. 2; spins as in [0047] by a motor [drive] 28, fig .3);
a guide member for guiding the floor cleaning device (12, fig. 1, [0026]; 112(f) equivalent as being a upright pivoted body analogously to how guide member 14 is a upright pivoted body connected to a floor cleaning head); and
a joint assembly connecting the floor unit and the guide member in an articulate manner (joint member 76, fig. 2-3; [0051]);
wherein the floor cleaning device is configured to produce an advance effect with respect to the floor surface in the direction of advance (the floor cleaner can be moved in the forward direction, leftwards along the direction of Y-Y in fig. 2, to produce an advance or forward effect relative to the floor; furthermore the cleaning pads 30 glide the cleaner over the floor as in [0071] and it is understood that that effect would be in the forward direction based on the rotation of the cleaning pads in fig. 1, the mops move inwards/backwards causing the glide effect similarly to how the instant counterrotating floor brushes cause an advance effect);
wherein the joint assembly is configured with a first pivot joint having a first pivot range with a defined or virtual first pivot axis and allowing a pivot movement of the guide member relative to the floor unit about the first pivot axis (first pivot joint 90, fig. 3, [0045], causes side to side movement along the Y axis in fig. 3; see also ann. fig. 2 above),
wherein the first pivot axis is in a first pivot axis plane which is perpendicular to the floor surface and contains a direction vector defining the direction of advance (see the imaginary floor cleaned by the mop in ann. fig. 2 above), wherein the direction of advance is in the first pivot axis plane (ann. fig. 2), wherein in a maneuvering operating state, the guide member can be pivoted about the first pivot axis relative to the floor unit (see fig. 5; [0051]), wherein the guide member can be fixed or temporarily supported in the first pivot axis plane relative to the floor unit or to the floor (a user can temporary hold and support the guide unit while in use, though hand grip 24, fig. 1 [0025,0029]) wherein, as a result of the pivoting movement of the guide member about the first pivot axis, with the support of the guide member in the pivot axis plane being conveyed, the advance effect brings about a moment of rotation of the floor unit on the floor surface that supports the maneuvering of the floor cleaning device (the guide member being held/conveyed supports the movement of the floor cleaner as in [0025] and as in [0071], the pads 30 glide the floor cleaner, which is understood, to cause a rotation moment as the mops rotate, which is understood to provide the claimed support functionality to move the cleaner around).
With respect to claim 3, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first pivot joint is permanently fixable to the floor unit about the first pivot axis or lockable in predetermined positions providing for an alignment of the first longitudinal axis with the direction vector defining the direction of advance in the maneuvering operating state (lockable through lock out mechanism 104, figs. 4-5, [0046,0049], that lock out side to side pivoting, being kept in a neutral/centered position [aligned with the advance/forward direction] while allowing the pivot axis and the guide part to move along the X axis shown in fig. 3, providing for limiting the pivot axis to predetermined positions).
With respect to claim 4, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the joint assembly is configured with a second pivot joint having a second pivot range with a defined or virtual second pivot axis and allowing a pivot movement of the guide member relative to the floor unit about the second pivot range (second pivot joint as 100, fig. 3; [0045-0046], which allows a range of pivoting defined by the structure), wherein the second pivot axis is parallel to the floor surface and transverse to the first pivot axis (see axis X in ann. fig. 2 above, and fig. 3; [0045-0046]).
With respect to claim 14, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, and further discloses wherein the joint assembly comprises a connecting member connecting the first pivot joint to the second pivot joint, (connecting member 76, fig. 4; [0039]) wherein the connecting member is pivotable relative to the floor unit about the second pivot axis (pivotable along second X axis as shown in fig. 3; [0045-0046]) the guide member is pivotable relative to the connecting member about the first pivot range with its first pivot axis (pivotable along first Y axis in fig. 3; [0045]).
With respect to claim 23, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, and further discloses wherein the second pivot axis is perpendicular relative to the first pivot axis (the second pivot axis X and the first pivot axis Y, addressed in the rejection of claim 4 and 1, are perpendicular as shown in fig. 3)
With respect to claim 24, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the guide member comprises a longitudinal axis which is perpendicular to the first pivot axis (guide member 12, fig. 1 is shown with a up/down axis relative to fig. 1; and the first pivot axis Y is perpendicular, as shown in fig. 1 and perpendicular to a second pivot axis X which swivels as described in [0044-0045]).
With respect to claim 33, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the guide member comprises a handle (handle as hand grip 24, fig. 1 [0025,0029]), and a direction of advance is a forward direction consistent with a movement of the floor unit occurring when a user pushes the handle (when pushed from behind cleaner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and further in view of Brueckner (US 20130133146 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose in that in the maneuvering operating state, the first pivot axis and the direction vector defining the direction of advance enclose an acute angle ranging between 15 and 45 degrees.
Brueckner, in the same field of endeavor, as relating to floor cleaning machines, teaches that the working position of the cleaner generally encompasses an angle range of 0 - 45 degrees ([0061]), and that providing multiple positions adapts the handle to the respective user. ([0061]).
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 Ding, using the teachings of Brueckner such that the handle is movable between 0 and 45 degrees (examiner notes that 45 degrees is halfway from a right angle between a line perpendicular to the floor and the floor, and when measured from the floor, would also be 45 degrees as 45 degrees + 45 degrees = 90 degrees, making the right angle, and also notes that 45 degrees is within both claimed ranges), because this range provides multiple positions to adapt the user.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and further in view of Kim (KR 20160134413 A).
With respect to claim 5, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the joint assembly is functionally assigned to a support device which, in the maneuvering operating state, supports the guide member or the joint assembly with the first pivot joint relative to the floor unit or relative to the floor at least temporarily or/and at least partially.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, provides for a joint assembly (147, fig. 13; page 4, 8th paragraph of translation) that is functionally assigned to a support device (support device being a locking protrusion 142, and slider 143 [shown as 143a with multiple slots], fig. 13 which is 112(f) equivalent to instant support device in that it provides support and fixes the angle of an analogous guide device [wand/upright portion] 141 in Kim; page 5 1st paragraph provides for multiple grooves [as 147a] understood to be shown as 143a fig. 13) which, in the maneuvering operating state, supports the guide member or the joint assembly with the first pivot joint relative to the floor unit or relative to the floor at least temporarily or/and at least partially (can support/hold the guide member relative to the floor as in page 4, 8-9th paragraph and page 5 1st-2nd paragraph of translation through fixing the angle of the guide member). Kim teaches that this arrangement allows tilting (page 6, 3rd paragraph of translation), which makes it easy to handle (page 2, 2nd paragraph of translation).
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 Ding, using the teachings of Kim to make it easy to handle while tilting.
With respect to claim 6, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the support device is lockable at least temporarily in at least three locking positions (Kim, 143a, fig. 13, is shown with at least 5 positions; page 5 1st paragraph provides for multiple grooves [as 147a] understood to be shown as 143a fig. 13).
With respect to claim 8, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the support device is rigid (Kim, a locking protrusion 142, and slider 143a, fig. 13, page 4, 8th paragraph of translation is understood to be a rigid/solid structure that provides locking as in page 4, 8th paragraph of translation, and is thus understood to be at least partially rigid in the locked position)
With respect to claim 11, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein a support device which is assigned to the first pivot range with its first pivot axis and is configured to at least partially support the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis with respect to the floor unit from a predetermined or predeterminable pivot angle. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 4, above, Ding provides for a second pivot axis, and it is further noted that the second pivot range is connected to the first pivot range through the universal joint housing (Ding, 76, fig. 4; [0039]).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, provides for a support device (support device being a locking protrusion 142, and slider 143 [shown as 143a with multiple slots], fig. 13 which is 112(f) equivalent to instant support device in that it provides support and fixes the angle of an analogous guide device [wand/upright portion] 141 in Kim; page 5 1st paragraph provides for multiple grooves [as 147a] understood to be shown as 143a fig. 13) arranged to support pivoting (can support/hold the guide member relative to the floor as in page 4, 8-9th paragraph and page 5 1st-2nd paragraph of translation through fixing the angle of the guide member, and as shown in fig. 13, that pivoting motion is analogous to that of the second pivot axis in Ding). Kim teaches that this arrangement allows tilting (page 6, 3rd paragraph of translation), which makes it easy to handle (page 2, 2nd paragraph of translation).
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 Ding, using the teachings of Kim to make it easy to handle while tilting. The limitations of wherein a support device which is assigned to the first pivot range with its first pivot axis and is configured to at least partially support the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis with respect to the floor unit from a predetermined or predeterminable pivot angle would result from the modification of Ding with the support device of Kim, as the assignment would be that the second pivot range would be locked/fixed in a front-back position when using the support device of Kim, and would be thus at least partially supported in that tilt position, when pivoting in the about the side-side first pivot axis.
With respect to claim 12, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein a support device is configured to support or guide the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis with respect to the floor unit along an arcuate path. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 4, above, Ding provides for a second pivot axis, and it is further noted that the second pivot range is connected to the first pivot range through the universal joint housing (Ding, 76, fig. 4; [0039]).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, provides for a support device (support device being a locking protrusion 142, and slider 143 [shown as 143a with multiple slots], fig. 13 which is 112(f) equivalent to instant support device in that it provides support and fixes the angle of an analogous guide device [wand/upright portion] 141 in Kim; page 5 1st paragraph provides for multiple grooves [as 147a] understood to be shown as 143a fig. 13) arranged to support pivoting (can support/hold the guide member relative to the floor as in page 4, 8-9th paragraph and page 5 1st-2nd paragraph of translation through fixing the angle of the guide member, and as shown in fig. 13, that pivoting motion is analogous to that of the second pivot axis in Ding). Kim teaches that this arrangement allows tilting (page 6, 3rd paragraph of translation), which makes it easy to handle (page 2, 2nd paragraph of translation).
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 Ding, using the teachings of Kim to make it easy to handle while tilting. The limitations of wherein a support device is configured to support or guide the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis with respect to the floor unit along an arcuate path would be understood, consistent with how the pivot along a first pivot axis moves in the instant disclosure, that guide member moves side to side, along an arcuate, path at least long the top, given a slender elongated guide member that is pivoted at one end, and because the guide member be thus at least partially supported in a front-back tilt position using the support device Kim, when pivoting in the about the side-side first pivot axis.
With respect to claim 17, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and however does not explicitly teach wherein the support device is integrally formed with the joint assembly or as a separate assembly that is modularly attachable to and detachable from the floor cleaning device. MPEP 2144.04 provides that making integral or separable different part is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 Ding, to have made either: at least a portion of the support device integral with the joint assembly [to make integral], or as a separate assembly that is modularly attachable to and detachable from the floor cleaning device [to make separable].
With respect to claim 18, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the joint assembly is configured as a double universal joint (connecting member 76, fig. 4; [0039] of the joint assembly provides a double universal joint consistent with the instant disclosure as it provides pivoting along a X axis as shown in fig. 3; [0045-0046] and along a Y axis in fig. 3; [0045]) however, does not exactly teach wherein the support device or at least one of a plurality of support devices is integrally formed with the double universal joint.
MPEP 2144.04 provides that making integral different parts is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 Ding, to have made at least a portion of the support device integral with the double universal joint.
With respect to claim 19, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the support device can be activated or deactivated by an operator (Kim, page 4, 8th paragraph, provides for a unlockable support device, which thus can be deactivated by the user).
With respect to claim 20, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the support device is pivotable by an operator between an operating position and a parking position, wherein the support device is lockable in at least one of the operating position and the parking position (Kim, at least part of the support device, specifically the locking protrusion 142, as explained in the rejection of claim 5 above, is pivoted between two positions, and locked in the groove, and one position/groove can be considered a position where the operator is using the device, and another position can be considered a parking position, the specific tilt angles thereof not defined in the claim, and the locking protrusion can be changed to be locked in the groove 143a, at either to the two positions).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and in view of Kim (KR 20160134413 A), and further in view of Benedict (US 20060143843 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the support device is continuously lockable (Kim, the support device including a locking protrusion 142, and slider 143 [shown as 143a with multiple slots], fig. 13, page 4, 8th paragraph, can be continuously locked, in that unless the user takes action to release the locking protrusion to change the tilt, the support device is continuously locked).
Alternatively, in an alternate interpretation of the support device is continuously lockable, where the support device can be locked in a continuous number of variable positions, Benedict, in the same field of endeavor, provides for a locking slot arrangement (44, fig. 1; [0032], which shows a continuous slot and pin arrangement). Benedict teaches that this allows accommodation of the height of the user ([0032]). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the notched channels (multiple slots) of Kim for the continuous slot of Benedict, providing a variable number of positions as a simple substitution of substitution of one known element for another, and the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and in view of Kim (KR 20160134413 A), and further in view of Tran (US 20030192573 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, however does not explicitly teach that the support device comprises a spring element having a progressive support effect, depending on the angle between the first pivot axis and the direction vector defining the direction of advance.
Tran, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning devices, teaches of providing in a support device (analogous support device 74, fig. 2; [0033]), a spring element having a progressive support effect (spring element 182, fig. 2, having a support effect to counter gravitational forces as in [0032]), depending on the angle between the first pivot axis and the direction vector defining the direction of advance (the spring has a effect that is angularly variable [and with respect to the floor/height, and when applied, with respect to the first pivot axis] as in [0029, 0032]; springs provide progressive effects defined by how much the spring is compressed/extended). Tran teaches that this arrangement allows consistent and even amount of force between multiple different operators at different heights ([0032])
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 Ding, to have the spring element of Tran in the support device, in order to provide constant force regardless of operator characteristics.
With respect to claim 10, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, however does not explicitly teach that a damper element is assigned to the support device.
Tran, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning devices, teaches of providing in a support device (analogous support device 74, fig. 2; [0033]), a spring [damper element]. Tran teaches that this arrangement allows consistent and even amount of force between multiple different operators at different heights ([0032])
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 Ding, to have the spring [damper element] of Tran assigned to the support device, in order to provide constant force regardless of operator characteristics.
With respect to claim 13, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, however does not explicitly teach that the support device is configured to progressively resiliently support the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis, with increasing pivot angle in both pivot directions.
Tran, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning devices, teaches of providing in a support device (analogous support device 74, fig. 2; [0033]), a spring having a progressively resilient effect (spring element 182, fig. 2, having a support effect to counter gravitational forces as in [0032]), depending on the angle [the tilt of the guide device] between the first pivot axis and the direction vector defining the direction of advance (the spring has an effect that is angularly variable [with respect to the floor/height, and when applied, with respect to the first pivot axis] as in [0029, 0032]; springs provide progressive effects defined by how much the spring is compressed/extended in both directions). Tran teaches that this arrangement allows consistent and even amount of force between multiple different operators at different heights ([0032])
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 Ding, to have the spring element of Tran in the support device, in order to provide constant force regardless of operator characteristics, which would result in the support device being configured to progressively resiliently support the guide member when pivoting about the first pivot axis, with increasing pivot angle in both pivot directions, through the effect of the spring, as the spring force changes depending on the tilt angle [in both directions].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and further in view of Tran (US 20030192573 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 14 above, however does not explicitly disclose that that the connecting member can be supported, resiliently, with respect to the floor unit.
Tran, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning devices, teaches of providing in a spring support (support 74, fig. 2; [0033]), a spring [damper element]. Tran teaches that this arrangement allows consistent and even amount of force between multiple different operators at different heights ([0032])
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 Ding, to have the spring [damper element] of Tran assigned to the support device, in order to provide constant force regardless of operator characteristics. The result would be that connecting member can be supported, resiliently, with respect [relative] to the floor unit, though the spring.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and in view of Kim (KR 20160134413 A), and further in view of Olsson (US 6421869 B1).
With respect to claim 16, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches the support device is assigned to a connecting member (Ding discloses of a connecting member 76, fig. 4; [0039] as part of the joint assembly, pivotable along second X axis as shown in fig. 3; [0045-0046], and the support device of Kim, as in the rejection of claim 5 above provides for a support device assigned to the joint assembly to support pivoting [about the X axis], thus, the support device is “assigned” to the connecting member in that it supports pivoting around the X axis) however does not explicitly teach wherein the support device comprises a support member which in the maneuvering operating state, contacts the floor unit, thereby providing support.
Olsson, analogously teaches of a support arrangement, that supports pivoting (see rotation along axis 18 and 24, fig. 2; col 3 lines 25-41; see an analogous support device 19, fig. 2; col 3 lines 5-21), with a support member (a bracket 17, fig. 2), that contacts the floor unit, thereby providing support (contacts floor unit 12 as shown in fig. 1; col 3 lines 5-21). Olsson teaches that this bracket enables the floor cleaner to be used as a handheld tool without a shaft [guide device] (col 3 lines 5-21).
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 Ding, to have the support member taught by Olsson, for the purpose of enabling handheld use without the guide part.
Claim(s) 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and in view of Kim (KR 20160134413 A), and further in view of Franke (US 20150113757 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, however does not explicitly teach that a magnet, is assigned to the support device and is configured to secure the support device during support against pivoting contrary to a support direction up to a limit force.
Franke, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of a magnet (magnet 25, fig. 15, [0055] with corresponding magnetizable part 26), is assigned to the support device and is configured to secure the support device during support against pivoting contrary to the support direction up to a limit force (when applied to Ding, would be “assigned” to the support device described by Kim, and would secure the support device against pivoting contrary to a support direction [direction that would opposed the folded up direction in fig. 14)], up to a limit force to release the magnet - “magnetic force securement can be neutralized in a simple manner as a result of pivoting” [0055]). Franke teaches that this arrangement would provide for a parked storage position ([0055]), which saves space ([0019]).
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 Ding, to have the magnet of Franke, so that a parked position can be provided, thus saving space.
With respect to claim 22, Ding, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 21 above, and further teaches that the support device provides, via the magnet, a positive or/and non- positive connection between the support device and the guide member and/or the floor unit (the adhesion member [magnet which sticks to magnetized surface] 25 of Franke, provides a positive [direct/indirect] connection between the support device (addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above) the guide member and floor unit (guide member and floor unit addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and further in view of Franke (US 20150113757 A1).
With respect to claim 25, Ding, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose that the joint assembly is attachable to the floor unit in such a way that a weight force of the guide member is introduced via the joint assembly into the floor unit at a geometric location of the floor unit which, as seen in the direction of advance, is located in front of a center of area or center of mass of the floor unit.
Franke, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of an arrangement of joint assembly attachable to the floor unit in such a way that the weight force of the guide member is introduced via the joint assembly into the floor unit at a geometric location of the floor unit which, as seen in the direction of advance, is located in front of a center of area of the floor unit (region G2, fig. 1 is chosen such that the weight is distributed into a front heavy manner towards the arrangement of brushes 11, [0054] which would be a geometric location that is in front of a center of area, as it is towards the front, guide part 2 is analogous to the instant guide member. Franke teaches that this arrangement ensures “ensure a good cleaning force as a result of the at least one rotatable tool” ([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 modified Ding, to arrangement of Franke with the center of mass, to ensure a good cleaning force.
With respect to claim 28, Ding, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose that that the floor cleaning device further includes a parking state, wherein in the parking state the floor unit is displaceable relative to the guide member into a space-saving parking position and lockable in such position.
Franke, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of a parking state (folded up state in figs 14-16, as described in [0055]), wherein in the parking state the floor unit is displaceable relative to the guide member into a space-saving parking position (guide member 2, fig. 14 relative to floor part 3, fig. 14) lockable in such position (using magnet 25, fig. 15, [0055] with corresponding magnetizable part 26). Franke teaches that this arrangement would provide for a parked storage position ([0055]), which saves space ([0019]).
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 Ding, to have the parking state of Franke, so for the purpose of saving space.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and further in view of Ashbee (US 20100011534 A1).
With respect to claim 26, Ding, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose a fastening device by means of which the joint assembly can be variably fastened to the floor unit at different fastening positions along the direction of advance.
Ashbee, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of providing a fastening device by means of which the joint assembly can be variably fastened to the floor unit at different fastening positions along the direction of advance (fastening device as bar 120, figs. 6-7; [0036-0038], which provides variable fastening at different positions relative to the a portion floor unit 102 as the bar 120 itself moves such that the force Fv acts at different positions with the joint at C-C is varied in position [along a forward/backward direction of advance]; 112(f) equivalent to a multiple position rail in that it adjusts the positions of a joint). Ashbee teaches that this arrangement provides a better cleaning effect by tilting the cleaning tool and forces the cleaning tool down to dig into the floor in the direction of movement ([0037]).
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 Ding, to have the fastening device of Ashbee, for the purpose of improving cleaning when moving in different directions.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and further in view of Wood (US 4658459 A) and Simonelli (US 20120060322 A1).
With respect to claim 27, Ding, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose that a mass ratio between floor unit and guide member ranges between 1:5 and 1:1 or between 1:1 and 5:1.
Wood, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches that the mass of the floor unit affects the stability of the machine in storage when not supported by the user (col 5 lines 5-20, the mass of motor 24, fig. 1 of the floor unit; examiner notes that Ding has a motor, as described in the rejection of claim 1; Simonelli, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches that the weight of the guide member (handle affects how tiresome it is for the user to use the machine ([0002]).
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.
Having demonstrated that both the mass of the floor unit and the mass of the guide member is result effective, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made it such that the mass ratio between floor unit and guide member ranges between 1:5 and 1:1 or between 1:1 and 5:1, given that an appropriate mass of the floor unit would have been selected such that the machine is stable, and an appropriate mass of the handle would have been selected so that the user is not fatigued handling the machine.
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180235425 A1) and further in view of Chappel (US 9357891 B1).
With respect to claim 29, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses of a second pivot axis (second pivot joint as 100, fig. 3; [0045-0046], which allows a range of pivoting defined by the structure; axis X in ann. fig. 2 above, and fig. 3; [0045-0046]), however does not explicitly disclose of wherein a support device is configured to fully lock the guide member with respect to the floor unit, so that pivoting about the first pivot axis and about a second pivot axis is blocked at least in a predetermined angular range.
Chappel, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of a support device that is configured to fully lock the guide member with respect to the floor unit (support device shown in entirety of 10, fig. 1; 112(f) equivalent as supports the guide member relative to floor unit, described in col 4 lines 47-end; holds/locks a guide member at 20, through bracket 25, fig. 5) so that pivoting about the first pivot axis and about a second pivot axis is blocked at least in a predetermined angular range (the bracket 26 and tabs 19, fig. 5 interact to limit pivoting, col 4 lines 47-end). Chappel teaches that this arrangement provides stability to the apparatus (col 2 line 65 -col 3 lines 8 describe how this prevents slippage when the cleaner is stationary, and col 3 lines 29-49 describes how this arrangement provides stability).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the support device of Chappel as part of Ding, for the propose of improving stability.
With respect to claim 30, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose A support device for the floor cleaning device of claim l (claim interpreted to require device of claim 1).
Chappel, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of a support device that is configured to fully lock the guide member with respect to the floor unit (support device shown in entirety of 10, fig. 1; 112(f) equivalent as supports the guide member relative to floor unit, described in col 4 lines 47-end; the support device holds/locks a guide member at 20, through bracket 26, fig. 5, the support device of Chappel including a base 18, fig. 1 that engages with a floor unit at the wheels thereof as described in col 2 lines 29-31, a bracket 16, and a struct 14 with tabs 19, fig. 1 that attaches to a shaft [and the rest of the guide member] through bracket 26; overall arrangement further described in col 5 lines 1-32; tabs 19 described in col 4 lines 47-end). Chappel teaches that this arrangement provides stability to the apparatus (col 2 line 65 -col 3 lines 8 describe how this prevents slippage when the cleaner is stationary, and col 3 lines 29-49 describes how this arrangement provides stability).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the support device of Chappel for use with Ding, for the propose of improving stability.
With respect to claim 31, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 30 above, and further discloses a base by means of which it is attachable either to a shaft or to the floor unit (Chappel, base a base 18, fig. 1 described in col 5 lines 1-32, engaged with wheels of the floor unit), and at least one support strut which introduces a weight force of the shaft into the floor unit permanently or by displacement into a support position (struct 14, fig. 1, the struct can introduce a weight force applied to the shaft as the base engages with the wheels of the floor unit, depending on the direction of the weight force applied to the shaft, for example if force is applied to push towards where the base is engaged with the floor unit “by displacement into a support position”).
With respect to claim 32, Ding discloses the limitations of claim 30 above, and further discloses wherein the support device further comprises a locking bracket which is pivotable (Chappel, bracket 16, fig. 1; in col 5 lines 1-32; the bracket is locking when fully assembled with the cleaner though the strut in that it limits angle movement, constant to how the instant support devices have a bracket that swings in place) wherein the locking bracket is configured to block any pivoting of the guide member about the first pivot axis or to block pivoting only from a predetermined pivot angle (Chappel, tabs 19, fig. 5 and bracket 26, fig. 5 to limit pivoting at least at certain angles, col 4 lines 47-end).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered. In view of the arguments and the interview dated 12/23/2025 (interview summary mailed 12/29/2025), the previous rejection is withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are presented above. Ding provides a first pivot axis (side to side) consistent with the instant disclosure and the claim language. This action is non-final.
No specific arguments were presented with respect to the dependent claims.
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 at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723