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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05-11-2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05-11-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11,13-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 12 has been cancelled. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05-11-2026, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11, and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.103 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.
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 and 13,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Hale (US20230033367A1) and Grave (US 5555598 A).
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; first and second fan- shaped spray pattern and wherein the first fan-shaped spray pattern overlaps with the second fan-shaped spray pattern prior to reaching a surface to be cleaned.
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.
Grave teaches a nozzle structure for a surface cleaning machine (abstract) that has first (44, figure 3) and second nozzle (46, figure 3) that has first and second fan- shaped spray pattern and wherein the first fan-shaped spray pattern overlaps (see arrows associated 44 figure 6) with the second fan-shaped spray pattern ( see arrows associated 46 figure 6) prior to reaching 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 nozzles include first and second fan- shaped spray pattern and wherein the first fan-shaped spray pattern overlaps with the second fan-shaped spray pattern prior to reaching a surface to be cleaned based on the teachings of Grave. This modification would help provide cleaning effectiveness with reduce energy input (see col 3 lines 10-35 of Grave)
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Liu (CN216724403U) and Grave (US 5555598 A).
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 extending helically around the main body and forming an acute attack angle with an outer surface of the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner, the outer surface of the main body being an outer-most surface of the agitator; 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).
Liu teaches rolling brush assembly (abstract) that includes a bristle strip (3, figure 3; each brush strip 3 includes a plurality of A brush unit 30) extending helically around a main body (2, figure 3) and forming an acute attack angle with an outer surface of the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner (figure 3; “the inclination angle of the bristle units 30 is acute, i.e., the inclination angle is 0 ° < α < 90 °.”), the outer surface of the main body being an outer-most surface of the agitator (see figure 3).
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 strip extending helically around the main body and forming an acute attack angle with an outer surface of the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner, the outer surface of the main body being an outer-most surface of the agitator based on the teachings of Liu. This modification would help improve cleaning and reduce probability of hair being caught on the rolling body. (see abstract Liu).
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 the acute attack angle is about 75° (“Liu discloses “figure 3; “the inclination angle of the bristle units 30 is acute, i.e., the inclination angle is 0 ° < α < 90 °.”).
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.
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 9, Gordon as modified above teaches 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.
However, Hale teaches spray deflector can be included on the spray nozzle device (see para 0065).
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 Hale. This modification would help shape the spray pattern. (see para 0065-0065 of Hale).
Claim(s) 16-17,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of and Grave (US 5555598 A) further in view of Liu (CN216724403U)
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.
However, Gordon does disclose other brush assemblies that can be used (see para 0034).
Liu teaches rolling brush assembly (abstract) that includes a bristle strip (3, figure 3; each brush strip 3 includes a plurality of A brush unit 30) extending helically around a main body (2, figure 3) and forming an acute attack angle with an outer surface of the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner (figure 3; “the inclination angle of the bristle units 30 is acute, i.e., the inclination angle is 0 ° < α < 90 °.”).
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 strip extending helically around the main body and forming an acute attack angle with an outer surface of 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 Liu. This modification would help improve cleaning and reduce probability of hair being caught on the rolling body. (see abstract Liu).
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).
Liu teaches rolling brush assembly (abstract) that includes a bristle strip (3, figure 3; each brush strip 3 includes a plurality of A brush unit 30) extending helically around a main body (2, figure 3) and forming an acute attack angle with an outer surface of the main body that opens in a direction of rotation of the agitator during a cleaning operation of the extraction cleaner (figure 3; “the inclination angle of the bristle units 30 is acute, i.e., the inclination angle is 0 ° < α < 90 °.”), the outer surface of the main body being an outer-most surface of the agitator (see figure 3).
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 Liu 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 the acute attack angle is about 75° (“Liu discloses “figure 3; “the inclination angle of the bristle units 30 is acute, i.e., the inclination angle is 0 ° < α < 90 °.”).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Liu (CN216724403U) and Hale (US20230033367A1) as applied to claim 17 further in view of Perry (US 20230355055 A1).
Regarding claim 10 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(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US20050091782A1) in view of Grave (US 5555598 A) and Liu (CN216724403U as applied to claim 17 further in view of Perry (US 20230355055 A1).
Regarding claim 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 by 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 Grave (US 5555598 A) 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)
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights