DETAILED ACTION
EXTRACTION CLEANER
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
The amendments filed 01-26-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01-26-2026, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 their dependent claims have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (as necessitated by amendment) relies on a different combination of prior art references, not applied in the prior rejection of record to teach the new claim limitations.
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) 11-13,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Hale (US20230033367A1).
Regarding claim 11, Gordon teaches
an upright body (62, figure 1);
a cleaning head (64, figure 1) pivotally coupled to the upright body (para 0032), the cleaning head including a debris inlet (100, figure 4) and an agitator chamber (see annotated figure below);
a suction motor (81, figure 4) fluidly coupled to the debris inlet;
a supply tank (76, figure 1) coupled to the upright body and fluidly coupled to the cleaning head;
a recovery tank (80, figure 1) coupled to the upright body and fluidly coupled to the debris inlet and the suction motor;
an agitator (116, figure 3) rotatably coupled to the cleaning head within the agitator chamber;
a first spray nozzle (120, figure 4) configured to generate a first spray pattern that extends between the agitator and the debris inlet; and
a second spray nozzle (122, figure 4) configured (capable of performing this action; para 0035) to generate a second spray pattern that extends between the agitator and the debris inlet, wherein a substantial portion of each of the first and second spray patterns does not intersect with the agitator and the agitator chamber (see annotated figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Gordon fails to teach the first spray nozzle disposed is above the agitator and second spray nozzle disposed above the agitator.
Hale teaches a cleaner head (10, figure 4) for a cleaning appliance that includes an agitator (11, figure 4), first (40, figure 4) and second spray nozzle (60, figure 4) that are disposed above the agitator (abstract, para 0061-0063), and hale further discloses that the spray nozzles can placed in various different positions. (see para 0061)
Because Hale discloses placing spray nozzles above the agitator, and changing the position of the spray nozzle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gordon’s spray nozzle so that the first spray nozzle disposed is above the agitator and second spray nozzle disposed above the agitator based on the teachings of Hale, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C) In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, modified Gordon teaches the first and second spray patterns overlap to form an overlap region (see Gordon the rear and front nozzles spray liquid on the surface where overlapping area include area forward central region of agitator; para 0035-0047, see Hale para 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 13, modified Gordon teaches wherein the overlap region is forward of a central region of the agitator. the rear and front nozzles spray liquid on the surface (see Gordon the rear and front nozzles spray liquid on the surface where overlapping area includes area forward central region of agitator; para 0035-0047; see Hale para 0061-0063)
Regarding claim 15, Gordon teaches the agitator (see Gordon 112, figure 3) includes a main body (see Gordon 116, figure 3) and a plurality of cleaning elements (see Gordon 118, figure 3) extending from the main body.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 16-17,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Chen (CN108464771A) and Hale (US20230033367A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches
an upright body (62, figure 1);
a cleaning head (64, figure 1) pivotally coupled to the upright body (para 0032);
a supply tank (620, figure 1) coupled to the upright body and fluidly coupled to the cleaning head;
a recovery tank (80, figure 1) coupled to the upright body and fluidly coupled to the cleaning head; and an agitator rotatably (112, figure 3) coupled to the cleaning head, the agitator including:
a main body (116, figure 3); and
a bristle (118, figure 3) extending helically around the main body (para 0034).
Gordon fails to teach bristle strip that has an acute attack angle with the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner; and at least one spray nozzle disposed above the agitator within the cleaning head, the at least one spray nozzle being configured to dispense fluid directly onto a surface being cleaned.
However, Gordon does disclose other brush assemblies that can be used (see para 0034).
Chen teaches an agitator (abstract) including a main body (11, figure 1); and
a bristle strip (122, figure 3) extending helically around the main body and forming an acute attack angle with the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner. (“in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the sidewall of the through hole 112 can make the angle between the extension direction of the free end of the scraper 122 and the radial direction of the brush roller 11 be an acute angle, and the scraper 122”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gordon’s brush assembly to have bristle to be a bristle strip with an acute attack angle with the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner based on the teachings of Chen. This modification would help improve cleaning and scraping effect of the bristles. (see Chen page 8 discloses “better scrape the surface to be cleaned and improve the cleaning effect”)
Hale teaches a cleaner head (10, figure 4) for a cleaning appliance that includes an agitator (11, figure 4), first (40, figure 4) and second spray nozzle (60, figure 4) that are disposed above the agitator (abstract, para 0061-0063) within the cleaning head, the at least one spray nozzle being configured to dispense fluid directly onto a surface being cleaned and hale further discloses that the spray nozzles can placed in various different positions. (see para 0061)
Because Hale discloses placing spray nozzles above the agitator, and changing the position of the spray nozzle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gordon’s spray nozzle so at least one spray nozzle disposed above the agitator within the cleaning head, the at least one spray nozzle being configured to dispense fluid directly onto a surface being cleaned based on the teachings of Hale, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C) In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gordon teaches wherein the acute attack angle, (see Chen “in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the sidewall of the through hole 112 can make the angle between the extension direction of the free end of the scraper 122 and the radial direction of the brush roller 11 be an acute angle, and the scraper 122”).
However, modified Gordon fails to teach acute angle is about 75°.
Since modified Gordon discloses an acute attack angle (see Chen “in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the sidewall of the through hole 112 can make the angle between the extension direction of the free end of the scraper 122 and the radial direction of the brush roller 11 be an acute angle, and the scraper 122”) there would be reasonable expectations of success. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the acute attack angle is about 75 degrees because the value does not appear to be critical to the claimed invention and/or provide any unexpected results.
Furthermore, the acute attack angle is about 75 degrees is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is to improve cleaning effect and increase surface contact. Moreover, it appears that the bristle strip of the agitator would have performed equally well with the claimed value since the general conditions of the claim are met (e.g. modified Gordon discloses acute attack angle) then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range/value by routine experimentation. Thus, as set forth above, it would have not been inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified wherein the acute attack angle is about 75 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, modified Gordon teaches wherein the cleaning head includes an agitator chamber (see Gordon annotated figure below) for rotatably receiving the agitator and a debris inlet (see Gordon 100, figure 4) separate from the agitator chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Gordon teaches wherein the agitator chamber includes a first spray nozzle (see Gordon 120, figure 4) and a second spray nozzle (see Gordon 122, figure 4), each spray nozzle fluidly coupled to the supply tank (See Gordon 620, figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gordon teaches wherein each of the spray nozzles (see Gordon 122, 120, figure 4 and annotated figure above) is configured to generate a spray pattern that extends between the agitator and a sidewall of the agitator chamber.
Regarding claim 6, modified Gordon teaches wherein a substantial portion of each spray pattern does not intersect with the agitator and the sidewall of the agitator chamber (see Gordon figure 4 annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gordon teaches wherein the first spray nozzle (see Gordon 120, figure 4) is configured (capable of performing this action) to generate a first spray pattern and the second spray nozzle (see Gordon 122, figure 4) is configured (capable of performing this action) to generate a second spray pattern, the first and second spray patterns overlapping to form an overlap region.
Regarding claim 8, modified Gordon teaches wherein the overlap region is forward of a central region of the agitator (see Gordon, the rear and front nozzles spray liquid on the surface where overlapping area include area forward central region of agitator; para 0035-0047).
Regarding claim 16, Gordon as modified in claim 11 and 15 teaches all the limitations stated above and cleaning elements (see Gordon 118, figure 3) ,but fails to teach an acute attack angle with the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner.
Chen teaches an agitator (abstract) including a main body (11, figure 1); and
a bristle strip (122, figure 3) extending helically around the main body and forming an acute attack angle with the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner. (“in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the sidewall of the through hole 112 can make the angle between the extension direction of the free end of the scraper 122 and the radial direction of the brush roller 11 be an acute angle, and the scraper 122”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gordon’s cleaning element to have an acute attack angle with the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner based on the teachings of Chen. This modification would help improve cleaning and scraping effect of the bristles. (see Chen page 8 discloses “better scrape the surface to be cleaned and improve the cleaning effect”)
Regarding claim 17, Gordon as modified in claim 16 teaches all the limitations stated above ,but fails to teach least one of the cleaning elements is a bristle strip.
However, Gordon does disclose other brush assemblies that can be used (see para 0034).
Chen teaches an agitator (abstract) including a main body (11, figure 1); and
a bristle strip (122, figure 3) extending helically around the main body and forming an acute attack angle with the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner. (“in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the sidewall of the through hole 112 can make the angle between the extension direction of the free end of the scraper 122 and the radial direction of the brush roller 11 be an acute angle, and the scraper 122”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gordon bristle to
be a bristle strip based on the teachings of Chen for purpose of using any known alternative cleaning element capable contacting and cleaning a surface. The substitution would have resulted in the predicable result of removing and cleaning particles off a surface.
Regarding claim 19, Gordon as modified in claim 16 wherein at least one of the cleaning elements is bristle tuft (see Gordon 118, figure 3; para 0034).
Regarding claim 20, modified Gordon teaches wherein the acute attack angle, (see Chen “in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the sidewall of the through hole 112 can make the angle between the extension direction of the free end of the scraper 122 and the radial direction of the brush roller 11 be an acute angle, and the scraper 122”).
However, modified Gordon fails to teach acute angle is about 75°.
Since modified Gordon discloses an acute attack angle (see Chen “in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the sidewall of the through hole 112 can make the angle between the extension direction of the free end of the scraper 122 and the radial direction of the brush roller 11 be an acute angle, and the scraper 122”) there would be reasonable expectations of success. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the acute attack angle is about 75 degrees because the value does not appear to be critical to the claimed invention and/or provide any unexpected results.
Furthermore, the acute attack angle is about 75 degrees is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is to improve cleaning effect and increase surface contact. Moreover, it appears that the bristle strip of the agitator would have performed equally well with the claimed value since the general conditions of the claim are met (e.g. modified Gordon discloses acute attack angle) then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range/value by routine experimentation. Thus, as set forth above, it would have not been inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified wherein the acute attack angle is about 75 degrees.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Chen (CN108464771A) and Hale (US20230033367A1) as applied to claims 1 and 17 further in view of Perry (US 20230355055 A1).
Regarding claim 10 and 18, modified Gordon teaches all the limitations stated above, and a motor that drives the agitator (para 0034) ,but fails to teach the agitator includes a driven end and a non- driven end and the bristle strip extends from the driven end to the non-driven end.
However, Gordon does disclose the brush assembly can be driven any suitable motor(see para 0034).
Perry teaches an agitator (60, figure 3) for a cleaning apparatus (abstract) that includes a driven end (68, figure 3) and a non- driven end (figure 3) and the bristle extends from the driven end to the non-driven end (para 0031)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gordon brush assembly motor to includes a driven end and a non- driven end and the bristle strip extends from the driven end to the non-driven end based on the teachings of Perry for purpose of using any known alternative motor assembly capable of driving the agitator. The substitution would have resulted in the predicable result of driving the agitator and rotating the agitator.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Hale (US20230033367A1) as applied to claim 11 further in view Kasen (US5867861A1).
Regarding claim 14, Gordon as modified in claim 11 teaches all the limitations stated above and of the first spray nozzle and the second spray nozzle include a nozzle body (para 0024 figures 3-4) ,but fails to teach a spray deflector configured to direct cleaning fluid towards a surface to be cleaned.
Kasen teaches an upright water extraction cleaning machine with two suction nozzles (44,46, figure 2) and a spray deflector (96, figure 4) configured to direct cleaning fluid towards a surface to be cleaned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gordon’s spray nozzle to include a spray based on the teachings of Kasen. This modification would help extend the spray pattern. (see Kasen col 4 lines 1-30)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Chen (CN108464771A), Hale (US20230033367A1) as applied to claim 4 further in view of Kasen (US 20230355055 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gordon as modified above teaches all the limitations stated above and of the first spray nozzle and the second spray nozzle include a nozzle body (para 0024 figures 3-4) ,but fails to teach a spray deflector configured to direct cleaning fluid towards a surface to be cleaned.
Kasen teaches an upright water extraction cleaning machine with two suction nozzles (44,46, figure 2) and a spray deflector (96, figure 4) configured to direct cleaning fluid towards a surface to be cleaned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gordon’s spray nozzle to include a spray based on the teachings of Kasen. This modification would help extend the spray pattern. (see Kasen col 4 lines 1-30).
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 SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723