DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-11 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 25 July 2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the alternative structures are sufficiently related that search for all species would not create a burden. This is not found persuasive because the differences between the respective embodiments lies primarily in the type of sensor to detect the position of the bumper. Although the general concept is known in the current field of the invention, as evidenced in the prior art rejections below, the alternative sensors would require search in areas relating to contact and/or proximity sensors to determine relevance, known alternatives in the (sensor) art and/or alternative structures of the sensors.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the amended limitation that the at least one motor drives a number of revolutions of the brush and a suction force of the cleaner is not supported by the original application because there is no disclosure for how a single motor may be capable of driving the brush and suction motor simultaneously. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that “the controller generates the control signal such that the at least one motor comprises a first motor that drives the number of revolutions of the brush and a second motor that drives the suction force of the cleaner” and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear how a motor may control the brush speed and the suction force, because a single motor (optionally claimed as at least one motor), as supported for the current application is not capable of driving both the brush speed and suction force.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uenishi et al. (JP 08-299235 A; to be referred to hereinafter as ‘235) in view of Howard et al. (2021/0007569; provisional priority date July 2019 pre-dating the earliest priority of the current application) and Yoo et al. (2014/0150820).
‘235 discloses a cleaner comprising a suction nozzle (10) and a handle (6/8), the cleaner being moved by means of the handle, wherein the suction nozzle comprises a bumper (15-17) and a brush (12), wherein the bumper is composed of a first surface (16) and a second surface (15) and is disposed outside the nozzle, wherein the second surface is disposed apart from the first surface by a first distance, and wherein a suction force of the cleaner is controlled according to the first distance that changes in response to the pressing of the bumper (English translation of Abstract; “When the wall surface detection switch detects an obstacle, the control part increases the input of the electrically driven air blower”). However, ‘235 fails to disclose that the number of revolutions of the brush is also controlled according to the first distance that changes in response to the pressing of the bumper. Howard and Yoo both disclose vacuum cleaners, also having suction nozzles and brushes. Howard teaches that when is it determined that the nozzle is cleaning near a wall, it may cause change to the brushroll speed to optimize side cleaning (paragraph 78) and may also change brushroll speed when hitting a baseboard with a front strike to provide better front edge cleaning (Table 1). Yoo also teaches that when the cleaning robot cleans a wall, the cleaning robot may increase the rotational speeds of the main cleaning tool (similar to the brush of ‘235), thus possibly improving the cleaning performance of an angled corner (paragraph 280). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to also control the speed of the brush of ‘235 in response to the detected change in distance of the bumper, being taught by ‘235 as detecting a wall, to improve cleaning along the wall or in a corner, as taught by Howard and Yoo.
Regarding the amended limitations of claim 1, introduced 7 May 2026, ‘235 discloses that the first surface (16) is formed of a flexible material (rubber; paragraph 20 of Machine Translation of ‘235) that is capable of being pressed in a first direction toward the second surface to deform the shape of the first surface (paragraph 20 also defines that the front part of the bumper bends upward when pushed backwards and paragraph 21 indicates that the wall detection switch switches on when the front part of the bumper is pushed backward, which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art that the front/first surface must deform when pressed to activate the switch as disclosed), the second wall (15) being arranged in a structure that overlaps the first surface in the direction the first surface is to be pressed (effectively any direction that the first surface could be pushed; and the second wall 15 will overlap the rear side of the front wall 16 at least in a perpendicular direction in the plane of the page for Fig. 6) and is disposed apart from the first surface by a first distance in the first direction.
Regarding the new limitations of claim 1, introduced 25 November 2025, although ‘235 also fails to disclose a control based on a time the bumper is pressed, Howard, which is relied upon for teaching the additional control functions, also teaches that the pressing input signal may be sampled periodically (with a certain time between samples) and control functions, such as brushroll activation, may be activated only when the input signals exceed a threshold over a period of time (paragraph 39), which would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure a proper input signal is received, prior to activating controls in response to the input signal (i.e. avoid/reduce false signals when only active for a very short period of time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the device of ‘235 to similarly assess periodical input signals, and to actuate controls, such as suction force, as taught by ‘235, only when the input signals exceed a threshold over a period of time, as taught by Howard.
Regarding claims 2, ‘235 further discloses that the vacuum comprises a controller (main control part 24 and control circuit 33), with Howard and Yoo both disclosing motors for controlling rotation of the brush (112 of Howard and 173 of Yoo) and for controlling suction (122 of Howard), wherein the operation of ‘235 as modified by Howard and Yoo will further function by the suction nozzle (bumper switch) generating a pressing signal of the bumper when the first distance is changed to a second distance according to the pressing of the first surface, and generates a pressing release signal of the bumper when a distance between the first surface and the second surface is changed from the second distance to the first distance, wherein the controller generates the control signal such that the number of revolutions becomes a first number revolutions according to the pressing signal and the number of revolutions becomes a second number of revolutions according to the pressing release signal (as taught by Howard and Yoo), and wherein the pressing of the first surface is in proportion to a distance moved by means of the cleaner using the handle (when the nozzle is pressed against an object), the second distance is narrower than the first distance, and the first number of revolutions is larger than the second number of revolutions (paragraph 280 of Yoo).
Regarding claim 12, all limitations of the claim are addressed above for claims 1 and 2
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 08-299235 A (to be referred to hereinafter as ‘235) in view of Howard et al. (2021/0007569; provisional priority date July 2019 pre-dating the earliest priority of the current application) and Yoo et al. (2014/0150820) as applied to claims 1 and 2, and further in view of Ichikawa et al. (10,264,938).
‘235 discloses the vacuum as discussed supra, with a sensor to detect movement of the outer bumper surface, but fails to disclose a photo interrupter as the sensor. Ichikawa discloses another vacuum cleaner, also having a bumper sensor to detect movement of the bumper, and teaches that a preferred sensor includes a photo interrupter. Thus, Ichikawa teaches a known alternative in the art for the sensor of ‘235, which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be more durable, due to a lack of contact between respective parts of the sensor, to prevent/avoid wear of any of the components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the phot interrupter sensor taught by Ichikawa in place of the sensor of ‘235, being known alternative in the art with the advantage of reduced wear due to a lack of contact between respective parts of the sensor.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the photo interrupter (78a/b) taught by Ichikawa is disposed on the first surface (78), and the photo interrupter is defined in a horseshoe shape including a space therebetween, wherein a light-blocking material (85) is disposed at a position corresponding to the space on the second surface, wherein the light-blocking material does not enter the space at the first distance and at least part thereof enters the space at the second distance, and wherein the photo interrupter will generate the pressing signal in response to the first distance and generate the pressing release signal in response to the second distance when provided in place of the sensor of ‘235.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the photo interrupter comprises a light- emitting element (78a) and a light-receiving element (78b), and the space is defined between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element, and wherein the photo interrupter will generate the pressing signal or the pressing release signal according to an amount of light of the light-emitting element detected by the light-receiving element.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the photo interrupter detects a first amount of light from the light-emitting element at the first distance (Fig. 7), detects a second amount of light from the light-emitting device at the second distance (when the bumper contacts an object; not shown), generates the pressing signal according to the first amount of light, and generates the pressing release signal according to the second amount of light, and wherein the first amount of light is less than the second amount of light.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the photo interrupter will generate the pressing signal when the first amount of light is changed to the second amount of light, and generate the pressing release signal when the second amount of light is changed to the first amount of light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments appear to primarily rely on the new limitations added to claims 1 and 12, that the first surface is formed as a flexible material that is capable of being pressed in a first direction, which are addressed above as being obvious over the previously applied prior art due to the disclosure of the base reference to Uenishi et al. Additionally, the arguments relating to the functions of the controller are not considered to be persuasive, because the applicant argues different individual functions for each of the cited prior art references, but does not make any argument relating to the prior art as combined in the Office Action, to make obvious the claimed function. Specifically addressing the applicant’s argument that Uenishi does not teach an algorithm for determining how much the suction force is increased, there is no algorithm claimed or even disclosed for the current application, such that the disclosure of Uenishi is considered to be applicable to the claimed function of the motor increasing the suction force when the bumper is pressed (with secondary teaching of Howard applied for the remainder of the limitation addressing the bumper being pressed for a time longer than a reference time). Therefore, the examiner maintains the above rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of JP 3345904 and JP 2011-206360 provide cleaner having similar structure and functions to the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 11 June 2026
Prosecution Insights