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 .
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) 1-7, 10-11, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swift, US 4,706,320.
Regarding claim 1, Swift discloses the claimed invention including a brush configured to be rotatably arranged in a cleaning device (26) that is movable across surfaces (surfaces of 10, Figures 1-3), at a position of a functional head of the cleaning device which is configured to face the surfaces to be cleaned (see Figures 1-3), the brush comprising a core element (74) and brush elements arranged on the core element (76, Figure 3), wherein tip portions of the brush elements are configured to contact the surfaces to be cleaned (Figures 1-3), wherein the brush elements are arranged in a bristle field extending in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the brush and in a peripheral direction about the longitudinal axis (Figures 1-4), wherein the brush elements comprise fiber hairs (76), wherein a linear mass density of the tip portions of the brush elements is lower than 15g per 10km (column 3 lines 20-25, 7 denier convert to 7.77 g per 10km), and wherein an average of a packing density of the brush elements in the bristle field is lower than 15,000 brush elements per 1 cm2 (column 3 lines 20-25, 14,000 to 40,000 per square inch converts to 2,170 per 1 cm2 to 6,200 per 1 cm2). Regarding claims 2-3, the brush elements are substantially equally or unequally distributed throughout the bristle field (Figures 5-6c show the fibers equally distributed, Figures 7a-7b, 9a-10b; show the bristles woven in unequally distributed due to local interruptions of the weaving). Regarding claim 4, the average of the packing density of the brush elements in the brush field is lower than 10,000 brush elements per 1 cm2 (column 3 lines 20-25, 14,000 to 40,000 per square inch converts to 2,170 per 1 cm2 to 6,200 per 1 cm2). Regarding claim 5, the linear mass density of at least the tip portions of the brush elements is lower than 10g per km (column 3 lines 20-25, 7 denier convert to 7.77 g per 10km). Regarding claims 6 and 19, the average of the packing density of the brush elements in the bristle field is higher than 1,000 or 2,000 brush elements per 1 cm2 (column 3 lines 20-25, 14,000 to 40,000 per square inch converts to 2,170 per 1 cm2 to 6,200 per 1 cm2). Regarding claims 7 and 20, the linear mass density of at least the tip portions of the brush elements is higher than 0.7g or 0.8g per 10 km (column 3 lines 20-25, 7 denier convert to 7.77 g per 10km). Regarding claim 10, the brush is shaped like an elongated cylinder having a circular periphery (Figure 4). Regarding claim 11, the brush comprises a cloth which is provided with the brush elements and which is wrapped around the core element (fabric strip, Figure 4, column 5 lines 58-61).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit et al., US 10,349,796.
Regarding claim 1, De Wit et al. disclose the claimed invention including a brush configured to be rotatably arranged in a cleaning device (3, 4) that is movable across surfaces (11), at a position of a functional head of the cleaning device which is configured to face the surfaces to be cleaned (see Figures 1-4), the brush comprising a core element (15) and brush elements arranged on the core element (17, 18), wherein tip portions of the brush elements are configured to contact the surfaces to be cleaned (Figures 1-3), wherein the brush elements are arranged in a bristle field extending in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the brush and in a peripheral direction about the longitudinal axis (Figures 1-4), wherein the brush elements comprise fiber hairs (18), wherein a linear mass density of the tip portions of the brush elements is lower than 15g per 10km (5g per 10km, column 6 lines 17-27; also referred to as a Dtex, value, see column 6 lines 13-16), and wherein an average of a packing density of the brush elements in the bristle field is 15,000 brush elements per cm2 (column 5 lines 51-54). Regarding claims 2-3, the brush elements are substantially equally or unequally distributed throughout the bristle field (Figures 1-4 show the fibers equally distributed, can also be considered substantially unequally distributed in that they are arranged in tufts so that there are local interruptions between tufts; also see column 8 lines 36-45). Regarding claim 5, the linear mass density of at least the tip portions of the brush elements is lower than 10g per km (5g per 10km, column 6 lines 17-27). Regarding claims 6 and 19, the average of the packing density of the brush elements in the bristle field is higher than 1,000 or 2,000 brush elements per cm2, (15,000 brush elements per cm2, column 5 lines 51-54). Regarding claims 7 and 20, the linear mass density of at least the tip portions of the brush elements is higher than 0.7g or 0.8g per 10 km (5g per 10km, column 6 lines 17-27). Regarding claim 9, the bristle field comprises a pattern of tufts of the brush elements (spiral pattern, column 6 lines 63-65). Regarding claim 10, the brush is shaped like an elongated cylinder having a circular periphery (Figures 1-4). Regarding claim 12, the brush is configured to be driven at a rotation speed involving acceleration including centrifugal acceleration of at least 3,500 m/s2 at tip portions of the brush elements moving out of contact with a surface to be cleaned during operation of the cleaning device (column 4 lines 26-40). Regarding claim 13, De Wit discloses the claimed invention including a cleaning device (1) movable across a surface for cleaning the surfaces (surfaces 11) comprising a functional head configured to face the surfaces to be cleaned (Figures 1-4) and at least one brush according to claim 1 (see above relating to claim 1; brushes 3 or 4) rotatably arranged in the functional head about a rotation axis extending in the direction of the longitudinal axis (axes 5 or 6, Figures 1-4). Regarding claim 14, the cleaning device comprises a mechanism configured to drive (motor, column 7 lines 45-49) the at least one brush at a rotation speed involving acceleration including centrifugal acceleration of at least 3,500 m/s2 at tip portions of the brush elements moving out of contact with a surface to be cleaned during operation of the cleaning device (column 4 lines 26-40). Regarding claim 15, the cleaning device is operable in at least a wet operation mode (described in column 8 line 50 to column 9 line 30) and comprising a wetting system configured to supply a cleaning liquid to an area of the functional head (supply at reservoir 8 to hollow core 15, via flexible tube 19; see Figures 1 and 3) where the at least one brush is located to thereby realize a wet cleaning condition of the at least one brush in the wet operation mode of the cleaning device (Figures 1 and 3).
De Wit et al. disclose that the brush has an average of a packing density of the brush elements in the bristle field of 15,000 brush elements per cm2 (column 5 lines 51-54). De Wit et al. do not disclose an average packing density of lower than 15,000 brush elements per cm2 when the linear mass density is lower than 15 g per 10kg (documented in the table in column 11 lines 15-25, note Dtex value). Having a packing density of 14,999 brush elements per 1 cm2 or within a standard deviation of error of fewer than 15,000 brush elements per 1 cm2 may result during manufacture and would be reasonable to expect when the brush is being produced (this could be caused by bristle loading or mounting errors or mishaps, bristle breakage, weak bonding of a bristle to a backing, etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the packing density of the brush elements of De Wit et al. to achieve an average packing density of lower than 15,000 brush elements per cm2 due to error during manufacturing and alternatively it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average packing density of lower than 15,000 brush elements per 1 cm2 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 205 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit et al., US 10,349,796 in view of Ohara et al., WO 2020/090001 A1 (see also English translation).
De Wit et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the packing density of the brush elements is higher at the position of an intermediate section of the bristle field than at least position of two side sections of the bristle field and which are located at either side of the intermediate section with the different packing densities in different sections being in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the brush. De Wit et al. additionally discloses that the brush elements do not need to be identical (column 8 lines 45-49). Also regarding claim 17, De Wit teaches different packing densities and in the table in column 11 line 15 there are two examples of brush elements where one is at most 50% of the packing density of other brush elements (differences between packing densities in brushes 1 and 2).
Ohara et al. teach a rotating brush for cleaning a surface (Abstract) with two types of cleaning elements (51, 52) and teaches that a thicker denser cleaning element has a higher performance of scraping dust and a thinner less dense cleaning element has a better wiping performance with dust and water droplets (see English translation). Ohara et al. also mention that the density of cleaning elements 51 is smaller than the density of cleaning elements 52 (see English translation). Particularly regarding claim 8, Ohara et al. teach that the packing density of brush elements (52) is higher at a position of an intermediate section of the bristle field (position at a portion of section 37, Figures 1-3) than at the position of two side sections of the bristle field and which are located at either side of the intermediate section (the two side sections are two portions of section 36, shown in Figures 1-3, particularly Figure 1 shows that section 36 is on either side of intermediate section 37). Regarding claim 16, the different packing densities of the brush elements in different sections of the brush field are in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the brush (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brush elements of De Wit et al. so that the packing density of the brush elements is higher at a position of an intermediate section of the bristle field than at the position of two side sections of the bristle field, located on either side of the intermediate section in the direction of longitudinal axis of the brush, as taught by Ohara et al., so that the two types of brush elements can achieve different cleaning effects simultaneously where one brush element density type is better at scraping dust wherein the other brush element density type is better at wiping in wet performance. Further regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention do use the packing densities provided by De Wit et al. so that where one is at most 50% of the packing density of other brush elements in order to achieve the desired intended result during cleaning.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit et al., US 10,349,796 in view of Follows et al., US 8,782,851.
De Wit et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the brush comprises a cloth which is provided with the brush elements and which is wrapped around the core element.
Follows et al. teach a similar rotary cleaning brush (80, Figure 10) that comprises a cloth (86) provided with brush elements wrapped around a core element (core 82) as an example of a known manner of securing brush elements to a core (column 7 lines 23-29).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manner in which the brush elements are secured to the core in the brush of De Wit et al. by having the brush comprise a cloth that is provided with the brush elements that is wrapped around the core element, as taught by Follows, as a known and successful manner to secure brush elements to a core.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit et al., US 10,349,796 in view of Moes, US 8,555,446.
De Wit et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the wetting system arrangement is configured to supply the cleaning liquid to the area of the functional head by pumping the cleaning liquid towards the area of the functional head.
Moes teaches a similar cleaning device to that of DeWit et al. and includes a wetting system configured to supply a cleaning liquid (system includes reservoir 110, fluid injector 250) to an area of a functional head having at least one brush (brushes 210a, 210b; see Figures 1-3), and is configured to supply the cleaning liquid to the area of the functional head by pumping the cleaning liquid towards the area of the functional head (pump not shown, see system in Figure 3, column 6 lines 16-20), the pump controls pressure and/or flow rate of the liquid supplied (column 6 lines 16-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wetting system of DeWit et al. to be configured to supply the cleaning liquid to the area of the functional head by pumping the cleaning liquid, as taught by Moes, as Moes teaches that a pump can assist in controlling a pressure or flow rate of a liquid supplied from the reservoir to the cleaning brush.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 13 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, and 12-15 to De Wit et al. (US 10,349,796) under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 25 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swift (US 4,706,320) and separately under USC 103 to De Wit et al (US 10,349,796).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg