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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 18, and 21 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 6-21 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections and specifically the amendments to claim 1, are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended with the allowable subject matter of the previous claim 4 noted in the action of 06/12/2026. Claims 3 and 6-17 are also allowed based on their dependency to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections and specifically the amendments to claim 18, are not persuasive. The broadness of the limitation allows the bristle’s lowermost surface to meet the limitation of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the claim 21 and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH0637806Y2, herein referred to as “JP1994”.
Regarding claim 18: “JP1994” discloses a cleaner head (1 Figs. 1-3) for a vacuum cleaner, the cleaner head being configured to apply suction to a horizontal surface (“floor suction tool” [001]; HS Fig. 1-A inserted below) to be cleaned by the vacuum cleaner, wherein the cleaner head (1 Fig. 1) comprises:
first and second agitator elements (first and second agitators 2 shown in Figs. 1-3) each being mounted for rotation about a respective axis (each 2 rotates about its respective axis) and wherein:
each agitator element comprises a first, free end (first, free end of 2 which faces outwards of 1 shown in Fig. 1) and a second end (second end which connects to 7),
each agitator element (first and second 2 shown in Figs. 1-3) has a shape which tapers (shown tapering in Figs. 1-3) towards the first end (first, free end of 2 which faces outwards of 1 shown in Fig. 1) in a direction along the axis of rotation (axis of rotation each 2),
the first and second agitator elements are cantilevered (both 2 are held by one end) from opposing sides of a hub portion (7 and 8 Fig. 1) of the cleaner head (1 Fig. 1) at their respective second ends (second end which connects to 7),
a lowermost surface (lowermost surface of brush elements shown in Figs. 2 and 3) of each agitator element is configured to contact the horizontal surface (“floor suction tool” [001]; HS Fig. 1-A inserted below) when applying suction thereto, and
throughout rotation of the agitator elements, each agitator element (first and second 2 shown in Figs. 1-3) is arranged such that the length of the horizontal surface to be cleaned (surface length under first and second 2 elements; embodiment of Figs. 1-3 relies on solely brushes 2) is substantially equal to a sum of the length of the lowermost surface of the first agitator element (first 2 shown in Figs. 1-3) and the length of the lowermost surface of the second agitator element (second 2 shown in Figs. 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 364362 A), herein referred to as “GB 1932”, and LANGHAM (GB 2393383 A).
Regarding claim 18: “GB 1932” teaches a cleaner head (g Figs. 1 and 2) for a vacuum cleaner (a Figs. 1 and 2), the cleaner head being configured to apply suction (“a beating member is rotatably mounted within the suction nozzle” Page 1, lines 12-15) to a horizontal surface (horizontal surface shown in Fig. 1) to be cleaned by the vacuum cleaner, wherein the cleaner head (g Figs. 1 and 2) comprises:
first and second agitator elements (i and k Fig. 5) each being mounted for rotation about a respective axis (rotation axis of i and k Fig. 5) and wherein:
each agitator element comprises a first, free end (first, free end furthest away from “m” Fig. 5) and a second end (second end closest to “m” Fig. 5), a hub portion (m Fig. 5), and
each agitator element (i and k Fig. 5) has a shape which tapers (shown in Fig. 5) towards the first end (first, free end furthest away from “m” Fig. 5) in a direction along the axis of rotation (rotation axis of i and k Fig. 5),
a lowermost surface (lowermost surface of bristles shown in Fig. 1) of each agitator element is configured to contact the horizontal surface (horizontal surface shown in Fig. 1) when applying suction thereto, and throughout rotation of the agitator elements (i and k Fig. 5),
each agitator element (i and k Fig. 5) is arranged such that the length of the horizontal surface to be cleaned (surface length under elements i and k) is substantially equal to a sum of the length of the lowermost surface of the first agitator element (i Fig. 5) and the length of the lowermost surface of the second agitator element (k Fig. 5).
But is silent on the first and second agitator elements are cantilevered from opposing sides of the hub portion of the cleaner head at their respective second ends.
LANGHAM in an analogous cleaner head (100 Figs. 1 and 2) for a vacuum cleaner (70 Fig. 2) the similar configuration first and second agitator elements (first and second 112 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) are cantilevered (“The brush bar comprises two brush bars 112 of equal size which are supported, cantilever fashion, from a part of the driving mechanism positioned in the centre of the chamber 110.” Page 5, lines 10-12) from opposing sides of a similar configuration hub portion (“a part of the driving mechanism positioned in the centre of the chamber 110” Page 5, lines 11-12) of the cleaner head at their respective similar configuration second ends (end which is closest to the “centre of the chamber 110”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner head of “GB 1932” with the cantilevered configuration as taught by LANGHAM for the purpose of having an alternate configuration for simplifying the mounting of different types of rotating brushes.
Regarding claim 20: “GB 1932” as modified teaches the cleaner head of claim 18, wherein each agitator element (i and k Fig. 5) is arranged such that a frontmost portion (1-SE Fig. 3-A inserted below) of each of the second ends (second end closest to “m” Fig. 5) of the agitator elements is further forwards than a frontmost portion (1-FE Fig. 3-A inserted below) of each of the first ends of the agitator elements (i and k Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
328
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 364362 A), herein referred to as “GB 1932”, LANGHAM (GB 2393383 A), and Kim (US 20200146521 A1).
Regarding claim 21: “GB 1932” teaches a cleaner head (g Figs. 1 and 2) for a vacuum cleaner (a Figs. 1 and 2), the cleaner head being configured to apply suction (“a beating member is rotatably mounted within the suction nozzle” Page 1, lines 12-15) to a horizontal surface (shown in Fig. 1) to be cleaned by the vacuum cleaner, wherein the cleaner head comprises:
first and second agitator elements (i and k Fig. 5) each being mounted for rotation about a respective axis (rotation axis of i and k Fig. 5), and wherein:
each agitator element comprises a first, free end (first, free end furthest away from “m” Fig. 5) and a second end (second end closest to “m” Fig. 5),
each agitator element (i and k Fig. 5) has a shape such than an external surface of each agitator element tapers towards the first end (first, free end furthest away from “m” Fig. 5) in a direction along the axis of rotation (rotation axis of i and k Fig. 5), a hub portion (m Fig. 5), and
each agitator element (i and k Fig. 5) is arranged such that a frontmost portion (1-SE Fig. 3-A inserted above) of each of the second ends of the agitator elements (second end closest to “m” Fig. 5) is further forwards than a frontmost portion (1-FE Fig. 3-A inserted above) of each of the first ends of the agitator elements (i and k Fig. 5).
But is silent on the first and second agitator elements are cantilevered from opposing sides of a hub portion of the cleaner head at their respective second ends; and the agitator element’s shape is specifically frusto-conical.
LANGHAM in an analogous cleaner head (100 Figs. 1 and 2) for a vacuum cleaner (70 Fig. 2) the similar configuration first and second agitator elements (first and second 112 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) are cantilevered (“The brush bar comprises two brush bars 112 of equal size which are supported, cantilever fashion, from a part of the driving mechanism positioned in the centre of the chamber 110.” Page 5, lines 10-12) from opposing sides of a similar configuration hub portion (“a part of the driving mechanism positioned in the centre of the chamber 110” Page 5, lines 11-12) of the cleaner head at their respective similar configuration second ends (end which is closest to the “centre of the chamber 110”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner head of “GB 1932” with the cantilevered configuration as taught by LANGHAM for the purpose of having an alternate configuration for simplifying the mounting of different types of rotating brushes.
Kim in an analogous cleaner teaches a similar configuration agitator elements (50 Fig. 3) which are frusto-conial shaped (shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator elements of “GB 1932” with the frusto-conical shape as taught by Kim for the purpose of having elements with an non-centered center of mass, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The most relevant art is: (JP-H0637806-Y2), herein referred to as “JP1994”, and Brown et al.
Regarding claim 19: JP1994 discloses the cleaner head of claim 18, and teaches a frontmost portion (FE Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the second end (second end which connects to 7) of the first and second agitator elements (first and second agitators 2 shown in Figs. 1-4), and
wherein a rearmost portion (RE on left Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the second end (second end which connects to 7) of the first agitator element (first agitator 2 shown in Figs. 1-4) is spaced apart from a rearmost portion (RE on right Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the second end (second end which connects to 7) of the second agitator element (second agitator 2 shown in Figs. 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But is silent on a frontmost portion of the second end of the first agitator element is directly adjacent to a frontmost portion of the second end of the second agitator element.
Brown et al. in an analogous cleaner head (800 Fig. 8) teaches wherein the similar configuration agitator elements (804-1 and 804-2 Fig. 8) are specifically directly adjacent to each other (shown in Fig. 8).
However, such a modification would not result in the rearmost portions of the second ends of the first and second agitator elements to be spaced apart.
Such a reconstruction would be extensive and there is no motivation to do so. Thus, one would only arrive at the claimed invention by using improper hindsight reasoning knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, and such a reconstruction would be improper.
Therefore, claim 19 would be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights