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 § 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 1, 2, 5-9, 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 102094660 B1).
As to claim 1, Kim includes a suction head (100) configured to be applied in a vacuum cleaner and to perform a cleaning action on a surface (machine translation (MT), para 27), the suction head comprising:
a housing (110; MT, para 29),
at least one brush (101) that is arranged in the housing to be rotatable about a rotation axis (101 rotates), and that wherein the at least one brush is configured to interact with the surface to be cleaned (MT, para 28),
wherein the housing is configured to expose a portion of the at least one brush to the surface to be cleaned and to cover another portion of the at least one brush (Brush 101 is next to air inlet 135 and guides dirt into housing 110 which it is mounted in, therefore, the housing exposes a part and covers another part of the brush; MT, para 41),
wherein a surface (The surface including 103 and surrounding 101) of the housing facing the at least one brush (Fig. 3-4) is provided with an outlet opening (103) that is configured to be in communication with an air suction source (Air is sucked into the vacuum cleaner, therefore, a suction source would exist; MT, para 45) configured to invoke a flow of air in a direction away from an area of the housing where the at least one brush is located (Air is sent through inlet 135, where brush 101 is located, and then out of outlet 103), through the outlet opening (MT, para 45),
wherein the surface of the housing facing the at least one brush is further provided with a plurality of grooves (131c, shown in Fig. 3-5),
wherein the plurality of grooves comprises two sets (The first set of grooves 131c are located leftward of 103, and the second set of grooves 131c are located rightward of 103; Fig. 5) of grooves, which are located at sides (Left and right sides of 103) of the outlet opening, wherein the sides of the outlet opening are opposite to each other in a longitudinal direction (The horizontal direction of Fig. 6) being the direction in which the rotation axis of the at least one brush extends (The brush rotates about a horizontal axis),
wherein each of the two sets of grooves includes grooves which are oriented with a circumferential component about the rotation axis (Fig. 4 shows the groove set wrapping around circularly relative to said horizontal axis) and with an axial component in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 6 shows the groove set extending in the horizontal direction), and
wherein, as seen in the same circumferential direction about the rotation axis, a direction (The downward direction that the grooves 103 leftward of 103 are sloped; Fig. 6) of an axial component of the grooves of the one set (Grooves leftward of 103) of grooves is opposite to a direction (The upward direction that the grooves 103 leftward of 103 are sloped; Fig. 6) of the axial component of the grooves of the other set (Grooves rightward of 103).
Kim does not include wherein a depth (d) of the grooves is in a range of 0.5 mm to 4 mm.
It would have been a matter of routine optimization to modify said distance to be in the claimed range, in order to customize the rate that dirt swirls in the housing while remaining cost effective. Too great of a depth leads to an unnecessarily high manufacturing cost, and too low of a depth leads to low quality due to the transfer of dirt to suction duct 103 occurring with insufficient stability (para 39).
Also, applicant has not disclosed criticality of the depth of the grooves being in the range of 0.5 mm to 4 mm, and therefore, is understood that modifying the depth would be a matter of routine optimization.
As to claim 2, wherein, in the longitudinal direction, the outlet opening is dimensioned to cover only a portion of a dimension (The circumference) of the at least one brush (Brush 101 is next to air inlet 135 where a portion of the circumference of the brush is exposed; Fig. 4).
As to claim 5, wherein the two sets of grooves are mirror-symmetrical relative to an imaginary mirror plane M (A vertical plane going through 103) that is perpendicular to the rotation axis of the at least one brush, and wherein the imaginary mirror plane intersects the outlet opening (Fig. 6 shows that the grooves 131c leftward of 103 are symmetrical to the grooves 131c rightward of 103).
As to claim 6, wherein at least one of the two sets of grooves includes grooves which are arranged like segments of one of a helical winding about the rotation axis of the at least one brush leading towards the outlet opening as seen in a direction of rotation of the at least one brush about the rotation axis (Fig. 5-6) and an elliptical winding about the rotation axis of the at least one brush leading towards the outlet opening as seen in a direction of rotation of the at least one brush about the rotation axis (Fig. 4 shows a helical groove set wrapping around circularly relative to said horizontal axis, and Fig. 6 shows the groove set extending in the horizontal direction. Claim 6 does not require the features after “and” due to “one of”).
As to claim 7, wherein individual grooves are configured to cover a distance (The horizontal length of a groove 131c from the perspective of Fig. 6) in the longitudinal direction (The horizontal direction) that is larger than the sum of a dimension (The horizontal length of a groove 131c from the perspective of Fig. 5) of an individual groove in the longitudinal direction and a distance (The distance between each 131c in Fig. 6) between the individual grooves in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 5-6).
As to claim 8, wherein the individual grooves have a saw tooth geometry with a steep saw tooth side (The horizontal side of 131c from the perspective of Fig. 5) and a shallow saw tooth side (The vertical side of 131c from the perspective of Fig. 5).
As to claim 9, wherein, in the cross-section of each of the individual groove grooves, the steep saw tooth side is at an angle (2) that is in a range of 0° to 45° relative to an imaginary reference plane (The horizontal direction from the perspective of Fig. 5) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (The vertical direction from the perspective of Fig. 5) [The angle is 0 degrees; Fig. 5] and/or the shallow saw tooth side is at an angle that is in a range of 45° to 85° relative to an imaginary reference plane (The horizontal direction from the perspective of Fig. 5) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (The angle is slightly below 85 degrees; Fig. 5).
As to claim 12, wherein the distance between the individual grooves in the longitudinal direction is in a range between zero and a distance (2wr) [Note: w and r may be any number because these were not defined in the claims] covered by the groove in the circumferential direction minus the dimension (The horizontal length) of each of the individual groove grooves in the longitudinal direction (Due to w and r not being defined, the distance is within the claimed range; See Fig. 12).
As to claim 13, wherein an operational shape of the at least one brush is generally the shape of a cylinder having a circular periphery (101 is substantially cylindrical; Fig. 2).
As to claim 15, Kim includes a cordless vacuum cleaner (The vacuum cleaner is wireless; MT, para 26), comprising the suction head according to claim 1.
As to claim 16, wherein, in the longitudinal direction, the outlet opening has a substantially central positioning relative to the at least one brush (Outlet 103 is halfway between the horizontal ends of brush 101; Fig. 2 and 6).
As to claim 17, Kim does not include: wherein a distance between the surface of the housing facing the at least one brush and an operational outline of the at least one brush is a distance in a range of 0 mm to 2 mm, in areas of the surface of the housing facing the at least one brush outside of the grooves.
Kim is silent to the distance from brush 101’s surface to areas of the surface of the housing facing brush 101 and outside of the area where grooves 131c are at.
It would have been a matter of routine optimization to modify said distance to be from 0 mm to 2 mm, for the following reasons: (1) to raise the length of the bristles to the highest length possible, providing the greatest possible brush circumference, thereby improving cleaning performance of the brush, (2) to prevent dirt from circulating inside of the brush head for too long, which would cover said surface with too much dirt and overburden the suction motor due to the dirt traveling too slowly through the suction head of the vacuum cleaner. Of course, use of bristles which are too short leads to lower cleaning performance while lowering cost of manufacturing. The designer needs to choose the appropriate level of cleaning performance and that is directly proportional to the length of the bristles.
Also, applicant has not disclosed criticality of the recited range as 0 mm to 2 mm, and therefore, is understood that modifying the range would be a matter of routine optimization.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 102094660 B1) in view of Nguyen (US 2020/0069137). As to claim 14, Kim does not include wherein the suction head comprises a wetting arrangement that is configured to enable a supply of liquid to at least one area of the surface to be cleaned and/or at least one area in the suction head.
Nguyen includes a suction head comprising a wetting arrangement (spray bar 183) that is configured to enable a supply of liquid to at least one area of the surface to be cleaned (183 supplies liquid to the surface that is cleaned; para 62 and Fig. 9) and/or at least one area in the suction head.
It would have been obvious to modify Kim so that the suction head comprises a wetting arrangement that is configured to enable a supply of liquid to at least one area of the surface to be cleaned and/or at least one area in the suction head, as taught by Nguyen in order to enhance the cleaning ability of the suction head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argued that element 131c, shown in Fig. 5, is not a groove.
131c is clearly a groove, which is a long narrow cut or depression, because of the fact that 131c is structurally identical, although off angled compared to usual grooves, to normal grooves. Because 131c has the same structure as a narrow cut and a depression, it is reasonable to interpret it as a groove.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argued that it would not be a matter of routine optimization to modify the depth of the grooves to be in the range of 0.5 mm to 4 mm, as stated in claim 1.
It would have been a matter of routine optimization to modify said distance to be in the claimed range, in order to customize the rate that dirt swirls in the housing while remaining cost effective. Too great of a depth leads to an unnecessarily high manufacturing cost, and too low of a depth leads to low quality due to the transfer of dirt to suction duct 103 occurring with insufficient stability (para 39).
Applicant did not point out, using the MPEP, why the depth of the grooves to be in the range of 0.5 mm to 4 mm is patentable. MPEP 2144.05, section III says that applicant may rebut a case of obviousness, applicant needs to provide evidence of the criticality of the range given. Applicant has not disclosed criticality of the depth of the grooves being in the range of 0.5 mm to 4 mm, and therefore, is understood that modifying the depth would be a matter of routine optimization.
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 ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 S. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights