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 11-14 and 18-21 are pending. Claim 11 is currently amended. Claim 21 is new
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).
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 approximately 45 degree angle), and 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 (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).
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 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 to have modified Kasper such that the angle relative to the floor would be 45 degrees, and such a modification would have been predictable.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper (US 20160270610 A1), and further in view of Meyer (DE 102010000577 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Kasper as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, however does not explicitly teach a spring for pressing said treatment facility onto the floor relative to the chassis.
Meyer, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches a spring (spring 16, fig. 4, [0038]) for pressing said 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 relative to the chassis (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.
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]), and 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 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 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First the applicant argues (response page 8, in view of underlined aspect of claims 6-7) that the instant invention described in claim 11 is different from that of Kasper (while not elaborated on, the examiner understands that this is in reference to the movement of the treatment facility relative to the chassis in some way). First, the chassis is identified in Kasper, 162, fig. 7. The guide moves 164 and 186 (suction mouth and brush) it relative to the chassis although the wedge shape in fig. 9 (see also figs. 10-11 referenced in rejection of claim 15). Therefore the requirements of the claim are met, with the applicant not demonstrating that there is a difference within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (the applicant did not elaborate on any specific differences or pointed to what is missing from Kasper that was recited in the claim).
As for the arguments directed towards claim 14 (response page 8), the applicant argued that the snap spring in Meyer applied in claim 14 is bi-stable, which is different than the instant pressing spring. The applicant did not specifically point out what is missing from Meyer, and the examiner submits that the snap spring presses the roller until a force is exceeded, as in [0039]). The claim does not exclude a bi-stable spring or otherwise require a continuous application of spring force as recited in the language of the claim, and this the arguments are unpersuasive, as the applicant has not identified any missing limitation of the claim from the prior art. As for the motivation to combine, the reason for the combination may be different than the reason provided by the applicant, and the examiner reasons that a POSITA would apply Meyer to prevent overloading.
As for the rejection of claim 16 (rewritten as claim 21), response page 9, the applicant argues that the examiner has not indicated any element as a guide. The examiner’s position is that the guide is simply the swing arm 600 in Ji, and contrary to the applicant’s position, that there does not need to be a combination of both a guide and a swing arm as two different elements. First, the instant disclosure only provides for a guide 105, as a swing arm 305 in fig.3. There is nothing that indicates that the swing arm is separate from the guide, and the specification also provides that guide 105 comprises a swing arm 305 (with nothing else). This is also reflected in the claim language, where the guide comprises a swing arm. Then, the applicant points unrelated aspects of Ji, with a guide block to support the applicant’s arguments, which is not persuasive to the examiner. The examiner’s position is that applicant did not demonstrate what is missing from the prior art that is recited in the claim, and finds the arguments unpersuasive.
On pages 10-11 the applicant summarizes the applicant’s previous position regarding the prior art and argues that the rest of the claims are allowable, with no specifics. The examiner believes all the arguments presented by the applicant are adequately addressed.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights