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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 16, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 10 and 11 – 20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1 – 7, 9 – 10, 13, 15 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al (US 20120311813 A1) in view of Sugano (JP 2015156987 A) and Li (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0246856 A1).
In re claim 1. Gilbert et al discloses a nozzle assembly (cleaning head, Fig. 2A: 300), comprising: a frame (roller frame, 380); a main roller (front roller, 310) rotatably coupled to the frame to extend in an extension direction (rotatably coupled to chassis, [0018]); and a sub-roller (rear roller, 320) located adjacent to the main roller brush to extend in the extension direction, and rotatably coupled to the frame (located next to nearby, front roller, 310 and rotatably coupled to chassis, [0018]); a motor (combination of 510 and gear, 760 ) connected to the main roller to drive the main roller (meshes with, fourth gear, 758 to rotate roller drive shaft, 710 for front cleaning head roller, 310; see Fig. 7), a main gear (fourth gear, 758) coupled to the outer circumference of the main roller to rotate together with the main roller and extending circumferentially along the outer circumference of the main roller (coupled to outer circumference of front roller, 310 and extending circumferentially, see Fig. 6); and a sub-gear (first gear, 750) coupled to the outer circumference of the sub-roller, and extending circumferentially along the outer circumference of the sub roller, (coupled to outer circumference of rear roller, 320 and extending circumferentially, 310, see Fig. 6), the sub gear gear-fitted to the main gear (first gear, 750 and gear-fitted to gear, 758 via gears 752, see Fig. 7), wherein: the main roller includes chevron vanes, 360 provided at an outer circumference of the main roller (periphery, see Fig. 2A), the sub-roller is located at a downstream side of a rotation direction of the main roller, such that a rotation of the main roller causes an object that is adhered to the chevron vanes to be moved by a predetermined distance in the rotation direction of the main roller, and then brought into contact with the sub-roller (rear roller, 320 is downstream front roller, 310 and is capable of being in contact with the dirt or dust, as an “object” is not positively claimed), and the main roller and the sub-roller are rotated in opposite directions (two counter-rotating rollers, see [0018]).
Gilbert et al discloses a surface that removes dirt or dust with vanes, see [0009] but is silent about an adhesive surface.
However, Sugano teaches a cleaning tool having an adhesive surface (adhesive tape roll, Fig. 2a: 12).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Gilbert et al with the teachings of adding an adhesive surface as taught by Sugano because it allows for entangled dust to be collected and not remain in the fiber and be easily collected (Sugano: [0006] – [0007]).
Gilbert as modified by Sugano teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above but does not teach wherein the sub-roller has a diameter smaller than that of the main roller, and the sub-roller is positioned higher than the center of the main roller, and the sub -roller rotates faster than the main roller due to the gear ratio of the main gear and the sub gear, thereby separating the object adhered to the adhesive surface.
Li, however, teaches the sub-roller ( first brush member, 40; Fig. 1) has a diameter smaller than that of the main roller (first rolling member, 20), and the sub-roller (40) is positioned higher than the center of the main roller (20; Fig. 1).
Li teaches a linear velocity difference at the contact point between the first brush member 40 and the first rolling member 20, thereby improving the brushing efficiency to separate sewage from the rolling member (Paragraph [0037]) but does not explicitly teach the sub -roller rotates faster than the main roller due to the gear ratio of the main gear and the sub gear, thereby separating the object adhered to the surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Gilbert as modified, to further include the sub -roller rotates faster than the main roller due to the gear ratio of the main gear and the sub gear, thereby separating the object adhered to the adhesive surface, as claimed, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Gilbert as modified, to further include the sub-roller has a diameter smaller than that of the main roller, and the sub-roller is positioned higher than the center of the main roller, as taught by Li, to provide an assembly that cleans thoroughly when moving in a reverse direction, thus increasing the cleaning efficiency.
In re claim 2. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 1, wherein an outer circumference of the sub-roller (rear roller, 320), has a roughness less than that of the adhesive surface (outer tubular surface is of a foam material and is capable of being less rough than adhesive, see [0094]).
In re claim 3. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 2, having the nozzle assembly (cleaning head, 300) comprising a sub-roller (rear roller, 320) and the object is separated from the adhesive surface (dust or debris drawn through inlet, 392 connecting the rotating brush, 320 that is capable of being in contact with the dirt or dust, see [0111] as an “object” is not positively claimed).
Gilbert et al as modified is silent about a plurality of the sub-rollers adjacent to each other, and object separated while passing between a pair of the plurality of sub-rollers. Applicant has not disclosed that having a plurality of sub-rollers adjacent to each other for separation of objects produces a new or unexpected result.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of duplication of parts to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the sub-roller because the duplication of these elements does not appear to produce a new or unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04, section VI:B). The motivation for doing so would be the user’s ability to replace one sub-roller if damaged instead of the nozzle assembly.
In re claim 4. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 1, wherein the sub-roller (rear roller, 320) comprises: a protrusion (chevron vanes, 360) extending from an outer circumferential surface of the sub-roller to separate the object from the adhesive surface (extend from rear roller, 320 and capable of separating as “object” is not positively claimed, see Fig. 2A).
In re claim 5. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 4, wherein: the sub-roller (rear roller, 320) includes a plurality of the protrusions (chevron vanes, 360), and the plurality of the protrusions (chevron vanes, 360) are spaced apart from each other and arranged in parallel along an axial direction of the sub-roller (spaced apart and arranged in parallel in axial direction, see Fig. 6), and a plurality of rows are defined by arranging the plurality of the protrusions in parallel along the axial direction of the sub-roller and to be spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the sub- roller (plurality of rows of chevron vanes, 360, in parallel and along a circumferential direction of rear roller, see Fig. 6).
In re claim 6. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 5, wherein for the respective rows located adjacent to each other among the rows defined by the plurality of protrusions, the protrusions and spaces between the protrusions are alternately arranged along the circumferential direction of the sub-roller (rows of chevron vanes, 360 are nearby each other and a space in which the chevron vanes, 360 are not disposed is located adjacent to the chevron vans, along the circumference of rear roller, 320, see Fig. 6).
In re claim 7. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 5, having the nozzle assembly (cleaning head, 300) comprising a sub-roller (rear roller, 320) with protrusions (chevron vanes, 360).
Gilbert et al as modified is silent about a plurality of the sub-rollers, and the protrusions provided on one of the plurality of the sub-rollers are inserted into spaces between other ones of the protrusions provided on another one of the plurality of sub-rollers. Applicant has not disclosed that having a plurality of sub-rollers and the protrusions provided on one of the plurality of the sub-rollers are inserted into spaces between other ones of the protrusions provided on another one of the plurality of sub-rollers produces a new or unexpected result.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of duplication of parts to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the sub-roller because the duplication of these elements does not appear to produce a new or unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04, section VI:B). The motivation for doing so would be the user’s ability to replace one sub-roller if damaged instead of the nozzle assembly.
In re claim 9. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 1, wherein the sub-roller (rotating rear roller, 320) comprises: a plurality of blades extending in the extension direction of the sub-roller, radially inward end portions of the plurality of blades being coupled to each other, and radially outward end portions of the plurality of blades being externally exposed (spaced chevron vane rollers, see Fig. 20).
In re claim 10. Gilbert et al as modified teaches nozzle assembly of claim 9, wherein one of the blades includes: at least one curved portion along the extension direction of the sub-roller (chevron-shaped vane has a central point, 365 that is curved, see Fig. 20).
In re claim 13. Gilbert et al discloses a robot cleaner (robotic vacuum, see Fig. 1), comprising:
a body (robotic vacuum body, see Fig. 1); a dust bin detachably coupled to the body part (removable dust bin, Fig. 3: 400 coupled to body) and having a space defined therein; a nozzle housing (cleaning head, Fig. 2A: 300) detachably coupled to the body, an inner space of the nozzle housing communicating with the space of the dust bin (removable roller frame 380, see [0133] and communicates with, 400 see Fig. 15); and a nozzle assembly (combination of roller frame, 380 and front/rear rollers, 310 and 320) accommodated in the nozzle housing, and exposed to an outside of the nozzle housing (accommodated in cleaning head, 300 and exposed to outside, see Fig. 2A), wherein a nozzle assembly (combination of roller frame, 380 and front/rear rollers, 310 and 320), comprising: a frame coupled to the nozzle housing (combination of chassis and roller frame, 380 coupled to cleaning head, 300); a main roller (front roller, 310) rotatably coupled to the frame to extend in an extension direction (rotatably coupled to chassis, [0018]); and a sub-roller (rear roller, 320) located adjacent to the main roller brush to extend in the extension direction, and rotatably coupled to the frame (located next to nearby, front roller, 310 and rotatably coupled to chassis, [0018]);a motor (combination of 510 and gear, 760 ) connected to the main roller to drive the main roller (meshes with, fourth gear, 758 to rotate roller drive shaft, 710 for front cleaning head roller, 310; see Fig. 7), a main gear (fourth gear, 758) coupled to the outer circumference of the main roller to rotate together with the main roller and extending circumferentially along the outer circumference of the main roller (coupled to outer circumference of front roller, 310 and extending circumferentially, see Fig. 6); and a sub-gear (first gear, 750) coupled to the outer circumference of the sub-roller, and extending circumferentially along the outer circumference of the sub roller, (coupled to outer circumference of rear roller, 320 and extending circumferentially, 310, see Fig. 6), the sub gear gear-fitted to the main gear (first gear, 750 and gear-fitted to gear, 758 via gears 752, see Fig. 7), wherein: the main roller includes chevron vanes, 360 provided at an outer circumference of the main roller (periphery, see Fig. 2A), the sub-roller is located at a downstream side of a rotation direction of the main roller, such that a rotation of the main roller causes an object that is adhered to the chevron vanes to be moved by a predetermined distance in the rotation direction of the main roller, and then brought into contact with the sub-roller (rear roller, 320 is downstream front roller, 310 and is capable of being in contact with the dirt or dust, as an “object” is not positively claimed), and the main roller and the sub-roller are rotated in opposite directions (two counter-rotating rollers, see [0018]).
Gilbert et al discloses a surface that removes dirt or dust with vanes, see [0009] but is silent about an adhesive surface.
However, Sugano teaches a cleaning tool having an adhesive surface (adhesive tape roll, Fig. 2a: 12).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Gilbert et al with the teachings of adding an adhesive surface as taught by Sugano because it allows for entangled dust to be collected and not remain in the fiber and be easily collected (Sugano: [0006] – [0007]).
Gilbert as modified by Sugano teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above but does not teach wherein the sub-roller has a diameter smaller than that of the main roller, and the sub-roller is positioned higher than the center of the main roller, and the sub -roller rotates faster than the main roller due to the gear ratio of the main gear and the sub gear, thereby separating the object adhered to the adhesive surface.
Li, however, teaches the sub-roller ( first brush member, 40; Fig. 1) has a diameter smaller than that of the main roller (first rolling member, 20), and the sub-roller (40) is positioned higher than the center of the main roller (20; Fig. 1).
Li teaches a linear velocity difference at the contact point between the first brush member 40 and the first rolling member 20, thereby improving the brushing efficiency to separate sewage from the rolling member (Paragraph [0037]) but does not explicitly teach the sub -roller rotates faster than the main roller due to the gear ratio of the main gear and the sub gear, thereby separating the object adhered to the surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Gilbert as modified, to further include the sub -roller rotates faster than the main roller due to the gear ratio of the main gear and the sub gear, thereby separating the object adhered to the adhesive surface, as claimed, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Gilbert as modified, to further include the sub-roller has a diameter smaller than that of the main roller, and the sub-roller is positioned higher than the center of the main roller, as taught by Li, to provide an assembly that cleans thoroughly when moving in a reverse direction, thus increasing the cleaning efficiency.
In re claim 15. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the robot cleaner of claim 13, having a nozzle assembly including a sub-roller (combination of roller frame, 380 and front/rear rollers, 310 and 320 and rear roller, 320).
Gilbert et al as modified teaches a sub-roller having a surface smoother than adhesive surface (vanes, 360 which are smoother, made from TPU, see [0013], than front roller, 310 having an adhesive surface taught by Sugano) but is silent about a plurality of the sub-rollers adjacent to each other, and object separated while passing between a pair of the plurality of sub-rollers.
Applicant has not disclosed that having a plurality of sub-rollers adjacent to each other for separation of objects produces a new or unexpected result. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of duplication of parts to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the sub-roller because the duplication of these elements does not appear to produce a new or unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04, section VI:B). The motivation for doing so would be the user’s ability to replace one sub-roller if damaged instead of the nozzle assembly.
In re claim 16. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the robot cleaner of claim 13, comprising: a protrusion extending from an outer circumferential surface of the sub-roller to separate the adhered object from the adhesive surface (front roller, 310 having an adhesive surface as taught by Sugano capable of separating an object by rear roller, 320 having vanes, 360, given “object” is not positively recited).
In re claim 17. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the robot cleaner of claim 13, wherein the sub-roller (rear roller, 320) includes a plurality of blades extending in an axial direction of the sub-roller, radially inward end portions of the blades being coupled to each other, and radially outward end portions of the blades being externally exposed (spaced chevron vane rollers, see Fig. 20), wherein one of the blades includes at least one curved portion along the extension direction of the sub-roller (chevron-shed vane has a central point, 365 that is curved, see Fig. 20).
In re claim 18. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 1
Gilbert et al as modified does not teach wherein the adhesive surface surrounds the outer circumference of the main roller.
However, Sugano teaches a cleaning tool having the adhesive surface surrounds the circumference of the roller (adhesive tape roll, 12 surrounds outer circumference, see Fig. 2a).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Gilbert et al with the teachings of adding an adhesive surface as taught by Sugano because it allows for entangled dust to be collected and not remain in the fiber and be easily collected (Sugano: [0006] – [0007]).
In re claim 19. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the robot cleaner of claim 16,
Gilbert et al as modified does not teach, wherein the adhesive surface surrounds the outer circumference of the main roller.
However, Sugano teaches a cleaning tool having an adhesive surface (adhesive tape roll, Fig. 2a: 12).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Gilbert et al with the teachings of adding an adhesive surface as taught by Sugano because it allows for entangled dust to be collected and not remain in the fiber and be easily collected (Sugano: [0006] – [0007]).
In re claim 20. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the robot cleaner of claim 16, wherein: the sub-roller includes a plurality of the protrusions (rear roller, 320 plurality of vanes, 360, see Fig. 20), and
the plurality of the protrusions are spaced apart from each other and arranged in parallel along an axial direction of the sub-roller, and a plurality of rows are defined by arranging the plurality of the protrusions in parallel along the axial direction and to be spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the sub-roller (vanes, 360 are spaced apart and arranged parallel and spaced apart along circumferential direction, see Fig. 20).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al (US 20120311813 A1) in view of Sugano (JP 2015156987 A), and Li (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0246856 A1) and Varon (US 4042995 A).
In re claim 8. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 4, having a rotating rear roller, 320 with chevron vanes, 360 having a cross-sectional area, see Fig. 6.
However, Gilbert et al as modified is silent about wherein a cross- sectional area of the protrusion is defined to be reduced in a direction opposite to an outer circumferential direction.
Varon teaches a tool for removing animal hair from carpeting having a cross- sectional area of the protrusion is defined to be reduced in a direction opposite to an outer circumferential direction (apex is smaller than base, see Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Gilbert et al as modified with the teachings of a cross- sectional area of the protrusion is defined to be reduced in a direction opposite to an outer circumferential direction as taught by Varon because aids in passing through the nap of the carpet to remove the most difficult animal hair (Varon.: Col. 2: Lines 1 - 11).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al (US 20120311813 A1) in view of Sugano (JP 2015156987 A), and Li (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0246856 A1) and Lee et al (KR 20140136853 A).
In re claim 12. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the nozzle assembly of claim 11, having a main gear and a sub gear (gear, 760 and 750).
Gilbert et al as modified teaches main and sub gears but is silent about main gear comprises a larger number of gear teeth than the sub-gear.
However, Lee et al teaches an automatic cleaner without electrical power having a gear comprising a larger number of gear teeth than another gear (number of teeth of friction wheel is greater than number of gear teeth of roller brush, see [0063]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Gilbert et al as modified with the teachings of a gear comprising a larger number of gear teeth than another gear as taught by Lee et al. because it allows for higher speed of rotation of the roller and allows the roller to strongly strike and move the dust to be collected (Lee et al: 0063]).
In re claim 14. Gilbert et al as modified teaches the robot cleaner of claim 13, main and sub gears (gear 760 has more gear teeth than, gear, 750), a motor (510) and the rotational velocity of the front roller and the rear roller can be different, see [0123].
Gilbert et al as modified teaches but is silent about wherein a number of teeth in the main gear is greater than a number of teeth in the sub-gear and the sub-roller is rotated at a faster speed than the main roller.
However, Lee et al teaches an automatic cleaner without electrical power having a gear comprising a larger number of gear teeth than the sub-gear and the sub-roller is rotated at a faster speed than the main roller (number of teeth of friction wheel is greater than number of gear teeth of roller brush and roller brush rotates at a higher speed than friction wheel, see [0063]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Gilbert et al as modified with the teachings of a gear comprising a larger number of gear teeth the sub-roller and the sub-roller is rotated at a faster speed than the main roller as taught by Lee et al. because it allows the roller to strongly strike and move the dust to be collected (Lee et al: 0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 16, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Li.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723