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 11-13 and 18-21 are pending. Claim 11 and 21 are currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The term “elastic element” in claims 11 and 20 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) despite the recitation of a nonce term “element” as “elastic” provides for sufficient definition of structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-13, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper (US 20160270610 A1) in view of Meyer (DE 102010000577 A1).
With respect to claim 11 Kasper discloses: A floor treatment facility, comprising:
a chassis (162, fig. 7, [0065]);
a running gear for guiding said chassis over a floor (running gear including wheels 220, 218, fig. 9; [0070]);
a treatment facility for treating the floor, said treatment facility including a suction mouth and a rotating brush (treatment facility including a suction mouth at 164, fig. 9; [0074], and a rotating brush at 186, fig. 8A, [0068]);
a guide for applying said treatment facility movably along a predefined path relative to said chassis (guide including front wedge 254 and rear wedge 256, fig. 9, [0072]), said guide including a linear guide (either of the wedge segments 254 and 256, fig. 9 are straight/linear guides), and said predefined path running straight (as mentioned before, the straight guides provide for a straight path, at least in the state shown in fig. 9);
said predefined path extending in a vertical direction relative to the floor (the predefined path formed by wedge segments 254 and 256, fig. 9 extend at an angle relative to the floor [that includes a vertical direction component consistent with the instant 45 degree angle), and said predefined path enclosing a predefined angle with a plane parallel to the floor (the wedge segments 254 and 256, fig. 9 forms an angle that is between a right angle and a parallel angle), said predefined angle amounting to a maximum of 45 degrees (the angle is [approximately/reasonably] 45 degrees as the vertex 258, fig. 9, described in [0072] is 90 degrees relative to a floor when there is a line drawn straight down, and the angle between the two wedges 254 and 256 is about 90 degrees at vertex 258, the angle would be about 45 degrees relative to the floor as about half of 90 degrees), however does not explicitly disclose an elastic element for pressing the treatment facility onto the floor.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” While the examiner submits that the angle formed by the wedge is reasonably 45 degrees relative to the floor, as required by the claim, in the alterative, it would have obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kasper such that the angle relative to the floor would be 45 degrees, and such a modification would have been predictable.
Meyer, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches a spring (spring 16, fig. 4, [0038], “elastic element”) for pressing the treatment facility (for pressing a brush roller 8, fig. 4, [0039], which is placed at a suction mouth 11, fig. 2, [0033]) onto the floor (the spring is mounted at brackets 18 to a chassis as in [0038]). Meyer teaches that providing a spring ensures even movement over uneven ground ([0003]), while this particular arrangement prevents the motor from overloading ([0004], “Exceeding the maximum load removes the support from the spring”, [0005]).
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 Kasper, with the spring of Meyer, for better travel across uneven floors, while preventing the motor from overloading.
With respect to claim 12, Kasper, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches wherein the floor treatment facility is configured to travel over the floor in a predefined direction of travel (indicated by arrows immediately below 174, fig. 9, [0070] provides travel over a surface being cleaned) and said predefined path is inclined against said predefined direction of travel (this would have been given as the path includes a vertical component as in claim 11, and is at about 45 degrees).
With respect to claim 13, Kasper, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches which further comprises a support supporting said treatment facility relative to the floor (support as carriage 216, fig. 9 [0070], which holds the wheels and thus the rest of the treatment facility, see figs. 10-11 where it holds the treatment facility above the floor when traveling above an obstacle 158, figs. 11, [0076]).
With respect to claim 18, Kasper, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches wherein the floor treatment facility is configured to travel in a predefined direction of travel over the floor (indicated by arrows immediately below 174, fig. 9, [0070] provides travel over a surface being cleaned), said running gear includes first and second wheels (running gear including wheels 220, 218, fig. 9; [0070]), and said first and second wheels and said treatment facility are attached to said chassis (through overall assembly as shown in fig. 7) and spaced apart from one another in said predefined direction of travel (as shown in fig. 9, the wheels 220, 218 are spaced apart in the direction of travel indicated by the arrows).
With respect to claim 19, Kasper, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches A floor treatment machine (vacuum cleaner 160, fig. 7, as in [0065] for cleaning floors as in [0126]), comprising the treatment facility according to claim 11 (addressed in rejection of claim 11 above).
With respect to claim 20, Kasper, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches A vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner 160, fig. 7, as in [0065] for cleaning floors as in [0126]), comprising the treatment facility according to claim 11 (addressed in rejection of claim 11 above).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (CN 111387886 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 4 (Ji)
With respect to claim 21, Ji discloses A floor treatment facility, comprising:
a chassis (chassis 500, fig. 1, [0057]);
a running gear for guiding said chassis over a floor (wheels 6 and 7, fig. 1; [0094], [0005] provides that the cleaner travels across uneven ground [floor]);
a treatment facility for treating the floor, said treatment facility including a suction mouth and a rotating brush (treatment facility as roller assembly 200, fig. 2, [0078] including [brush] roller 220, fig. 8 including bristles 222, fig. 12; which rotates as in [0078] and a suction mouth 822, fig. 12, [0083], arrangement can function to vacuum and sweep floor)
a guide for applying said treatment facility movably along a predefined path relative to said chassis (swing arm as 600 figs. 4 and 11, which allows mounting bracket 100, figs. 11 to pitch and tilt; [0065,0067], the predefined path is physically limited by the structure of the guide, this allows, as in [0005] travel over an uneven floor), wherein said guide includes a swing arm (swing arm as 600 figs. 4 and 11, which allows mounting bracket 100, figs. 11 to pitch and tilt; [0065,0067]), and said predefined path follows an arc of a circle (this would occur by swinging across a point/joint, for example around joint 601, fig. 4; see annotated fig. 4 above; [0065]).
said predefined path extending in a vertical direction relative to the floor (part of an arc includes vertical travel, for example around joint 601, fig. 4; see annotated fig. 4 above; [0065]),
an elastic element for pressing the treatment facility onto the floor (elastic element as buffer element 400, fig .2; [0056], which includes a spring sleeved on rod 430, fig .4, as in [0061-0062], this buffer element allows it to fall closer to the ground [pressing the treatment facility back down when compressed] while also handling bumps in [0065] while also absorbing any rises to follow uneven ground, the roller assembly 200 is mounted on frame 100 which allows this movement)
and a tangent to said predefined path enclosing a predefined angle with a plane parallel to the floor when the floor is even and said floor treatment facility stands on the even floor, said predefined angle amounting to a maximum of 45 degrees (depending on the point of intersection of the circular arc, an angle can be drawn between the arc and the floor to be less than 45 degrees, the predefined path making an angle consistent with instant fig. 3),
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” While the examiner submits that the angle formed by the arc can include a tangent 45 degrees relative to the floor, as required by the claim, in the alterative, it would have obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji such that the tangent angle relative to the floor would be 45 degrees, and such a modification would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 and 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the amendment dated 07/30/2026, the applicant argues that (1) Kasper does not provide a linear guide that allows movement of the treatment facility relative to the chassis (2) Meyer is counterintuitive to the current continuous contract pressure, and (3) Ji doesn’t have a guide with an instant swing arm. The examiner believes that the advisory action dated -8/05/2026 sufficiently addresses arguments (1) and (3). As for argument (2) it appears that the applicant has reverted to language similar, or broader to that in the claim set dated 06/23/2026, in that the previous entered claim set recited “a spring for pressing said treatment facility onto the floor relative to the chassis” in now canceled claim 14 and the current claim 11 recite “an elastic element for pressing the treatment facility onto the floor”, and the “continuous” aspect is not present, so the argument is moot. In addition, the examiner is not able to identify any structural features that excludes Kasper’s “lifting mechanism” in the amended claim language.
In the arguments dated 08/28/2026, the applicant primarily focuses on the potential lack of written description indicated in the advisory action. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s position that the spring must always provide for continuous pressure against the floor, to operate properly, as springs do have a neutral point where they do not always exert force, and also because if the spring encounters a large bump or bounce, while it might naturally move back towards the floor it maty not necessarily be touching the floor at that time.
To address Ji in claim 21, Ji provides for a spring as a buffer, which allows the cleaner to follow the floor (and can apply or bias the treatment facility back towards the floor after the bounce, applying pressure).
No other arguments were presented.
In terms of advancing prosecution, the examiner suggests that there may be some aspects not shown in the current prior art with respect to the placement of the spring in the floor cleaner, which may be depending on specific language.
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
