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Claims 7-11 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 new limitation that the suction force is controlled to increase in response to at least one of a length or a time that the bumper is pressed is not supported in the original application, as there is no disclosure relating to the “length” that the bumper is pressed. As best understood to be supported, the “length” refers an amount of time that the bumper is pressed (as there is no disclosure for detecting a specific distance that the bumper may be pressed), which is redundant with the alternative limitation of “a time”. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that “the suction force is controlled to increase in response to the bumper being pressed for a time longer than the reference time” (as supported in paragraph 75), and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation that eth motor controls at least one of a number of revolutions of the brush or a suction force of the cleaner is not supported in the original application, because the motor is not provided with any structure to be capable of performing a control function, as opposed to any common motor that will merely function in response to electricity provided thereto. Although the term “controller” was previously rejected for the same claim, it is suggested that the applicant add the term “controller” back to the claim, and clarify that the controller drives the motor at speed to provide a number of revolutions of the brush or a suction force of the cleaner, as well as providing the other functions set forth in the claim. While the examiner maintains that the original application fails to provide specific support for the structure of the cleaner, the functions provided by the claimed controller are so basic (effectively receiving a single input signal and outputting another corresponding single signal) that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure is capable of functioning as a controller, and the term “controller” will be treated with the broadest reasonable interpretation to effectively include any processor, computer, chip, etc. that is capable of receiving and outputting signals. Further, the limitation that the motor “controls” (or drives) at least one of the number of revolutions of the brush or a suction force is also not supported in the scenario that a single motor can/will drive the brush and suction force. As best understood by the examiner, the motor does not “control” the brush or suction motor, but merely drives one of the rotations of the brush or the suction force of the cleaner, and will be considered as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
NOTE: It is also suggested that the applicant amend the specification to corresponding terminology that the motor drives the brush or suction force, as opposed to “controls” the brush or suction force.
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, 2 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, as discussed above, it is unclear what is being referred to as a “length that the bumper is pressed”, and will be considered to be equivalent and redundant to the alternative limitation of “a time that the bumper is pressed.
Additionally, the new limitations in claims 1 and 12 of “in a direction which the first surface is pressed” is unclear because it references an intended use, wherein the bumper may be pressed in several different directions. It is suggested that the applicant amend the limitations to clarify the intended direction relative to the other claimed structure.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 12, the limitations relating to the claimed operations do not clearly define how the control functions are being carried out, or what creates which signals. As noted above, it has been suggested to introduce the controller to the claims, and clarify that the controller receives the pressing signal and pressing release signal from the nozzle, and then the controller respond with a corresponding signal to the motor to control one of the brush speed or suction force.
Also relating to claims 2 and 12, again it is unclear how a motor may control the brush speed and/or the suction force, because a typical motor does not include control means, and also because a single motor (as claimed), 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 and 2 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).
‘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 new limitations of claim 1, introduced 25 November 2025, ‘235 discloses 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). The other new limitation at the end of claim 1, 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 the limitation of claim 12 that the first surface is formed of a flexible material
Claim 12 is 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 Scott et al. (4,955,103).
Regarding claim 12, all limitations of the claim are addressed above for claims 1 and 2, with the exception of the first surface being flexible. However, ‘235 discloses that the first surface of the bumper is formed as a unitary part with a front wiper blade (14), which are typically formed of flexible materials, but fails to disclose any specific properties of the front surface or wiper. Scott discloses a bumper for a vacuum cleaner, and teaches that the bumper is formed of rubber (Col. 3, line 56), which would be easily understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to prevent damage to the vacuum and any object or surface that the bumper contacts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first surface (16; and wiper) of ‘235 from a flexible material such as rubber, similar to the teaching of Scott, to allow the front surface to flex in a manner that will allow the sensor(18) of ‘235 to function as intended, and also to prevent damage to the vacuum and any object or surface that the bumper contacts.
The new limitations introduced to claim 12 were also introduced to claim 1, and were addressed above under the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3-6 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 claim 3, 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 claim 4, 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 clam 5, 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 claim 6, 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.
Claims 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), Yoo et al. (2014/0150820) and Scott et al. (4,955,103) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Ichikawa et al. (10,264,938).
As discussed above for claims 3-6, it would have been obvious to provide the photo interrupt sensor of Ichikawa in place of the sensor of ‘235 , which will provide all of the structure and functions of claims 13-16, as discussed for claims 3-6, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments rested solely on the new limitations added to claims 1 and 12, which are addressed above as being obvious over the previously applied prior art. 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 10 February 2026