DETAILED ACTION
Cleaning Implement
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1: Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 10-15-2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Damrath (US20060016041A1).
Regarding claim 1, Damrath teaches a foot having a foot plate (9,10, figures 2-4) and an oscillation plate (para 0047-0052) movably coupled to the foot plate (figure 4); a motor (12, figure 5) coupled to at least one of the foot plate and the oscillation plate, the motor
including a rotor (figure 4) rotatable about a motor axis extending at a non-perpendicular transverse angle relative to the surface when the foot is supported upon the surface; and
an eccentric mass (4a and 4b) coupled to the rotor to generate an oscillating force between the foot plate and the oscillation plate upon rotation of the rotor, the oscillating force having a planar component parallel (F1) to the oscillation plate and a perpendicular (F2) component perpendicular to the oscillation plate (figure 3).
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) 1,3-6,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus (DE202016103320U1) in view of Damrath (US20060016041A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klaus teaches
a foot (14, figures 1-3) having a foot plate (15, figures 1-3) and an oscillation plate (18, figure 2) movably coupled to the foot plate; a motor (3, figure 2) coupled to at least one of the foot plate and the oscillation plate, the motor
including a rotor (8, figure 2) rotatable about a motor axis
an eccentric mass (6, figure 3) coupled to the rotor to generate an oscillating force between the foot plate and the oscillation plate upon rotation of the rotor (“oscillatory movement is preferably achieved by an electric motor driven eccentric drive.”),
Klaus fails to teach a rotor extending at a non-perpendicular transverse angle relative to the surface when the foot is supported upon the surface; and the oscillating force having a planar component parallel to the oscillation plate and a perpendicular component perpendicular to the oscillation plate.
Damrath teaches a device for wringing a mop and floor cleaning system that includes a foot having a foot plate (9,10, figures 2-4) and an oscillation plate (para 0047-0052) movably coupled to the foot plate (figure 4); a motor (12, figure 5) coupled to at least one of the foot plate and the oscillation plate, the motor
including a rotor (figure 4) rotatable about a motor axis extending at a non-perpendicular transverse angle relative to the surface when the foot is supported upon the surface; and an eccentric mass (4a and 4b) coupled to the rotor to generate an oscillating force between the foot plate and the oscillation plate upon rotation of the rotor, the oscillating force having a planar component parallel (F1) to the oscillation plate and a perpendicular (F2) component perpendicular to the oscillation plate (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 Klaus’s apparatus so that rotor is extending at a non-perpendicular transverse angle relative to the surface when the foot is supported upon the surface; and the oscillating force has a planar component parallel to the oscillation plate and a perpendicular component perpendicular to the oscillation plate based on the teachings of Damrath. This modification would help provide an improved drive for moving the device along the surface. (see para 0099-0102 of Damrath).
Regarding claim 3, modified Klaus teaches
a sprayer assembly (see Klaus abstract) comprising
a solution tank (see Klaus 4, figure 2) configured to store cleaning solution, an outlet nozzle (see Klaus 22, figure 2), and
a sprayer pump (see Klaus 5, figure 2) in fluid communication with the solution tank and the outlet nozzle, the sprayer pump configured to pump cleaning solution from the solution tank and out the outlet nozzle (see Klaus figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Klaus as modified in claim 1 teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to explicitly teach wherein the angle is between 10 and 20 degrees from perpendicular relative to the surface.
Since modified Klaus does disclose an angle at a degree from perpendicular relative to the surface. (see figures 3-4 of Damrath) 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 to have wherein the angle is between 10 and 20 degrees from perpendicular relative to the surface because the claimed angles do not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Furthermore, the angles from perpendicular relative to the surface are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that if the angle is too big than may negatively affect vibration assembly. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim are met (e.g. in this case modified Klaus discloses the rotor at an 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 have the angle is between 10 and 20 degrees from perpendicular relative to the surface. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 5, modified Klaus teaches
wherein the planar component is parallel to the surface and the perpendicular component is perpendicular to the surface (see Damrath F1, F2; figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Klaus teaches
wherein the motor (see Klaus 3, figure 2) is coupled to the oscillation plate (see Klaus 18, figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Klaus teaches
wherein the eccentric mass (see Klaus 6, figure 3) defines a center of mass offset from the motor axis.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus (DE202016103320U1) in view of Damrath (US20060016041A1) as applied to claim 1 further in view Bloemendaal (US20180116476A1).
Regarding claim 2, Klaus as modified in claim 1 teaches all limitations stated above and comprises a vacuum assembly comprising
a suction motor configured to generate suction to move dirty air through a dirty air inlet ( “The basic device 14 has, although not shown in detail, a suction device. The required suction air flow is via a in the base unit 14 arranged blower unit generates. Furthermore, in the base unit 14 preferably a filter bag or a dust receiving chamber arranged”) and a dust bin (“dust receiving chamber”) configured to collect the debris ,but fails to teach an impeller and a separator configured to separate the dirty air into debris and a clean air outlet configured to outlet clean air to the surroundings.
Bloemendaal teaches a surface cleaning apparatus that includes
a vacuum assembly (abstract) comprising
a suction motor (18; para 0042) and impeller (98, para 0042) configured to generate suction to move dirty air through a dirty air inlet (para 0042),
a separator (24; para 0029) configured to separate the dirty air into debris and clean air, a dust bin (para 0041) configured to collect the debris, and
a clean air outlet (para 0066-0068) configured to outlet clean air to the surroundings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Klaus’s apparatus to include impeller and a separator configured to separate the dirty air into debris and a clean air outlet configured to outlet clean air to the surroundings based on the teachings of Bloemendaal. This modification would help provide an improved surface cleaning apparatus that can easily remove spent cleaning fluid and debris from the air stream. (see para 0028-0034 of Bloemendaal)
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus (DE202016103320U1) in view of Damrath (US20060016041A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 further in view of Hann (KR101126541B1).
Regarding claim 7, Klaus as modified in claim 1 and 6 teaches all the limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the motor is coupled to a motor mount, and the motor mount is coupled to the oscillation plate.
Hahn teaches a sweeper that includes wherein the motor (160, figure 5b) is coupled to a motor mount (171 and 174, figures 5a-7) , and the motor mount is coupled to the cleaning apparatus plate (figures 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Klaus’s apparatus so the motor is coupled to a motor mount, and the motor mount is coupled to the oscillation plate based on the teachings of Hahn. This modification would help provide stable mounting for a motor that help transmits the force to the cleaning apparatus. (see abstract of Hahn).
Regarding claim 8, modified Klaus teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the motor mount includes a mount surface provided at the non-perpendicular transverse angle, and the motor rests upon the mount surface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of motor mount of modified Klaus to have any desired placement, including having the motor mount to have a mount surface provided at the non-perpendicular transverse angle, and the motor rests upon the mount surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)
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