DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a cleaning device, classified in A47L9/0477.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to a method of operating a cleaning device, classified in A47L9/2831.
NOTE: the inventions will be examined together at this time, primarily due to a lack of supporting disclosure for the necessary structure to provide the claimed operations (see below regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(b) and 112(f)), but will still be required, as further amendments to the application and/or claims to provide necessary support (if possible, without introducing New Matter) would require alternative searches, as discussed below.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case (2) the produce may be used for different methods operating remaining stationary to clean a location, not rotating the rollers and/or rotating the first and second rollers at the same speed.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The specific processes, when claimed in the method claims, represent substantially more detailed functions to be performed, as opposed to mere structure capable of performing similar processes, as claimed for the apparatus claims, effectively requiring search for purely structure (typically image searching) to specific disclosure of functions (typically more time consuming text searching).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
All pending claims are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species:
The cleaning device having a single driver for driving the first brush.
The cleaning device having first and second drivers for driving the first brush and second brush, respectively.
The species are independent or distinct because the embodiments are functionally different and effectively opposite of one another (mutually exclusive). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The alternative drive means for the brush(es) would require extensive search within the art due to alternative functions, and mutually exclusive structure. Although the prior art search areas may partially overlap, the structure and functions of the different embodiments would also require alternative search due to the diverging functions and structure.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
A telephone call was made to Thomas Jones on 24 November 2025 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the driver and sensor(s) (claims 1, 6, 9 and 19) and sensor(s) (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Both structures are merely shown schematically, but are not shown in a manner to support specific structure or location in the apparatus to provide the claimed functions.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation that the longitudinal axis is a rod is considered to be inaccurate. Although it is understood that the applicant intends to define the rod as functioning as an axis of rotation, a physical rod is different than a (imaginary) longitudinal axis. It is suggested that that the applicant amend the claim to either define the rod as the axle or as being coaxial with the longitudinal axis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the there is no supporting structure set forth in the application as a whole. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driver” in claims 1, 6, 9 and 19, “controller” in claim 9 and “sensor” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 6, 9, 18 and 19 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. The application fails to provide any structure for the “driver”, “controller” or “sensor”. Further, the functions disclosed as being carried out by the controller are not supported by any structure to make the claimed “controller” capable of performing the speed control, particularly relating to the ration of the first and second brush rotation speeds (claims 6, 18 and 19), which would require some form of control functions of comparing relative speeds and calculating the necessary change in operating speed of at least one brush.
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, 6-9 and 18-20 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. As discussed supra, the application as a whole fails to provide sufficient support for the driver, controller or sensor(s). Thus, it is unclear what each of these claimed structures are intended to be, and further unclear how the claimed control functions are performed.
It is unclear how the driver is configured to provide the claimed speed ration of claims 6, 18 and 19, because there is no driver or any control means for controlling the rotation speed of the second brush, or for comparing the speeds of the first and second brushes, then outputting an appropriate speed for the first brush to meet the claimed ratio.
Similarly, in claim 9, it is unclear how the first and second speeds are considered to control the operation of the driver (of the first brush).
Additionally, regarding claims 7, 8 and 20, the limitations that the respective brushes “are configured” to rotate at certain speeds is further unclear, because there is no structure discussed in the application as a whole that allow each brush to rotate at the claimed speeds, but rather would be dependent upon how the brushes are driven (i.e. the “driver” being capable of driving the brushes at the claimed speed).
Finally, claim 20 is further unclear because the claims only recite a single driver for controlling the rotational speed of the brushes, such that it is unclear how the single driver may be capable of controlling the brushes to rotate at different speeds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tajima et al. (JP 2017-140203A).
Regarding claim 1, Tajima discloses a cleaning device comprising: a main body configured to be movable along a plane; a first roller (5) longitudinally extending in a first direction and arranged to be rotatable relative to the main body; a first brush arranged on an outer circumferential surface of the first roller; a driver (motor 21) configured to generate power to rotate the first roller; a second roller (1) longitudinally extending in the first direction and arranged so as to be spaced apart from the first roller by a first distance and to be rotatable relative to the main body; and a second brush (2) arranged on an outer circumferential surface of the second roller, wherein the first roller and the second roller are configured so that the first roller is rotatable in a first rotation direction around a longitudinal axis of the first roller, the second roller is rotatable in the first rotation direction around a longitudinal axis of the second roller (as shown by arrows in Fig. 12), the first brush and the second brush overlap within a first range, and the first distance exceeds the first range(also shown in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 14, Tajima further discloses that the process of operating the claimed cleaning device of claim 1, will include moving the main body along the plane (of a surface being cleaned); rotating the first roller at a first rotation speed; and rotating the second roller at a second rotation speed (the claim does not require that the first and second speeds are different, the same or relative direction, such that any rotation of the two brushes, as taught by Tajima, will read on the claimed process).
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 20, as discussed supra, the claim and current application as a whole do not require any structure that make the rollers “capable of rotating” any specific speed. Therefore, the brushes, which are disclosed as being rotational, would be inherently capable of rotation at the claimed speeds if/when provided with a driver that can drive them at the claimed speed, or when moved along the floor at a speed necessary to rotate the brushes at the claimed speed (for claim 20, if driven by the driver at the claimed speed, while the second brush is contacting the floor surface to a degree that it would slow rotation provided by contact with the first brush to the respective claimed speed, as discussed by Tajima in last paragraph of the English language translation on page 6). Note that the method claim 20 merely recites that the brushes are capable of rotating the claimed speeds, but does not provide a method step of operating the device, controller or driver to provide the claimed speeds.
Regarding claim 10, Tajima further discloses a support frame (30, Fig. 11) configured to be detachable from the main body, wherein the second roller is configured to be rotatable relative to the support frame (as well as the remainder of the device).
Regarding claim 11, Tajima further discloses that a rod (102) is colinear with the longitudinal axis of the second brush and/or functions as the rotational axle of the second brush.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. (JP 2017-140203A).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 16, although Tajima does not disclose any specific diameters for the first and second rollers or brushes, Tajima does discuss the importance of the respective sizes of the brushes that interact with one another with advantages of making the second brush smaller (“viewpoint of miniaturization” understood to address reduction of overall size as a known advantage to reduce material needed to manufacture, overall footprint of the device and accessibility to limited spaces) or larger (“in order to suck large dust” understood to relate to the cleaning operations, with larger diameter allowing for larger objects/debris to be collected) in the last paragraph starting on page 7). Therefore, Tajima effectively teaches that the respective diameters of the rollers and brushes are result effective variables, wherein the current application provides no evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed diameters, such that it would have been obvious through routine experimentation to vary the diameters of the first and second rollers and brushes (see MPEP 2144.05, section II) in a manner that would make obvious the relatively wide range of respective claimed diameters.
Regarding claim 6, Tajima discloses at the bottom of page 6 that the rotation of the second roller/brush may be caused by contact with the first brush during rotation, but may change rotational speeds depending on contact with the surface to be cleaned, such that the device as claimed would obviously be capable of contacting at least one type of surface to the extent that the second brush is slowed substantially to a range within the claimed range
Regarding claim 12, Tajima further discloses a bearing holding member 37 and bearing holder 106 that holds the shaft (on page 8 of the English language specification, in the two paragraphs starting with “Fig. 11 is a perspective view”), wherein the bearing holders (106) are positioned at either end of the longitudinal axis of the second roller to support the longitudinal axis of the second roller. However, Tajima does not directly disclose bearings, but it would have been obvious for the bearing holders to hold bearings of the shaft (102) to allow for smooth and frictionless rotation, as is nearly universal in the art of rotating agitators for cleaners.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed supra, Tajima discloses bearing holders (106) on the support frame for holding the shaft (102) of the second brush, wherein the holders are shown to have an upwardly facing notch to receive the shaft therein. Tajima also discloses that the support frame (30) is hingedly mounted to the bottom of the housing, wherein the open notches on the bearing holders (106) would obviously interact with some corresponding structure when mounted to the housing to hold the shaft (102) in place during operation. Otherwise the shaft and brush would fall out of the bearing holders (106) when contacting a floor surface and/or due to contact with the first brush. Therefore, it would have been obvious for some portion of the housing, to which the support frame is connected, to function as a coupling member that is detachably fastened to the support frame so that the second roller is fixed to the support frame.
Claims 2, 5, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. (JP 2017-140203A) as applied to claims 1 and 14, and further in view of Igarashi (JP 2006-312066A).
Regarding all of claims 2, 5, 15 and 17, Tajima discloses that the first and second brushes may overlap to contact one another, and teaches that the overlap allows the first brush to impart rotational force to the second brush (end of page 6 as discussed supra), but fails to disclose how much overlap is provided between the brushes. Igarashi discloses a similar cleaning device, also having first and second rotation brushes, and teaches that the device is provided with a lever (25) for adjusting the position of the brushes relative to one another to either drive the second brush in one direction to collect debris (due to frictional resistance with the first rotating brush being greater than contact with the floor; Pg. 3 of English language translation in paragraph starting with “Reference numeral 10”) or allow the second brush to be driven by the frictional resistance with the floor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the device of Tajima with a similar adjusting switch for changing the position of the brushes relative to one another, which will allow the brushes to optionally provide different functions, as well as adjust the frictional resistance between the two brushes when in contact with one another, which will vary the speed of the second brush of Tajima, along with the variable contact force with the floor. Thus, the switch taught by Igarashi will allow the overlap amount to be modified, and will obviously include at least an overlapping range within the claimed range of 0.5-1.5mm and effectively vary the ratio between the first distance and the first range to also at least overlap the claimed 0.04 to 0.32 ratio. Further, the minimal claimed overlap and ratio of 0.5mm and 0.04, respectively, is understood to be approaching a minimal amount of contact between the brushes, wherein the capability of the first brush to drive the second brush, while also allowing the second brush to be slowed by contact with a surface, as taught by Tajima and Igarashi, would also teach the overlap amount and ratio to be a result effective variable (to control rotational speed of the second brush) and would be obvious through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05, section II).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. (JP 2017-140203A) as applied to claims 1 and 14, and further in view of Steeman et al. (EP 4241642 A1).
Tajima discloses that the first brush is driven by a motor/driver, but fails to disclose how the speed of the brush is controlled. Steeman discloses a similar cleaner having a rotating brush, and teaches that the brush is monitored by a controller to detect brush speed and change the drive unit for the brush as needed, for instance to stop the brush if the brush is obstructed (paragraphs 25-28), to prevent damage to the brush or an external surface, and that the brush includes a speed sensor (paragraph 43) to monitor the speed of the brush for the controller to modify the speed as needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least one brush with a sensor, or both to monitor rotation and prevent damage to either brush, to allow a controller to vary speed as needed to prevent damage or maintain desired operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Baumhakel (2006/0195991) and Iles et al. (8,745,818) discloses cleaning devices having similar structure and function as the applicant’s claimed inventions.
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 28 November 2025