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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 15.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 – 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 2 and 12 of copending Application No.18/282,471 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the both are directed towards a suction head comprising at least one wheel rotatably arranged on the suction head; wherein the wetting arrangement is arranged to enable the direct supply of liquid to the at least one wheel.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kalemba (CN1889881 A) – see attached Machine translation.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Kalemba teaches a suction head (sweeper, 1) configured to be applied in a vacuum cleaner (Paragraph [0036]) and to perform a cleaning action on a surface to be cleaned (Paragraph [0007]), the suction head (1) comprising: a housing (chassis, 2) that includes a coupling area configured to enable coupling of the housing (2) to an air suction source of the vacuum cleaner (Paragraph [0007]), two brushes in a substantially parallel arrangement in the housing, wherein each of the two brushes (sweeping brush, 6 with cleaning roller, 15) is rotatable about a rotation axis
( + as sown in Fig. 3) and is configured to interact with the surface to be cleaned (Fig. 3), and a wetting arrangement (liquid application device, 10) that is arranged and configured to enable a direct supply of liquid from at least one liquid supplying position to at least one area of the surface to be cleaned (Paragraphs [0023] and [0024]), wherein the at least one liquid supplying position (Annotated Fig. 3) is in an area between the two brushes (6 and 15) and at a level of the rotation axes of the one brush (6) or at a lower level than the level of the rotation axis of the brush (Annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kalemba does not teach the at least one liquid supplying position is at a level of the rotation axes of the two brushes or at a lower level than the level of the rotation axis of the brushes; however, 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 liquid supplying position to further include the at least one liquid supplying position is at a level of the rotation axes of the two brushes or at a lower level than the level of the rotation axis of the brus, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance of a component. A change in size/distance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Kalemba teaches the suction head (sweeper, 1) wherein the at least one liquid supplying position (Annotated Fig. 3) is at a bottom surface portion (Annotated Fig. 3) of the suction head (1) and wherein the at least liquid supplying position (Annotated Fig. 3) is arranged and configured to face the surface to be cleaned (Fig. 3).
Kalemba does not explicitly teach to face the surface to be cleaned at a distance of at least 2 mm and at most 6 mm to the surface; however, 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 liquid supplying position to further include to face the surface to be cleaned at a distance of at least 2 mm and at most 6 mm to the surface, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance of a component. A change in size/distance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Kalemba teaches the suction head (sweeper, 1) further comprising an elongated intermediate component (tank, 11) that is located in the area between the two brushes (6 and 15) and that optionally comprises two portions configured to cover portions of the two brushes ( the limitation is being examined as optional, thus not required).
Regarding Claim 5, Kalemba teaches the suction head (sweeper, 1) wherein the elongated intermediate component (11) at the position of a top side (top portion of tank, 11) thereof, is suspended from a portion of the housing (2; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Kalemba teaches the suction head (sweeper, 1) wherein the at least one liquid supplying position (Annotated Fig. 3) is at a bottom surface portion of the elongated intermediate component (11; Fig. 3), and wherein the bottom surface portion of the elongated intermediate component (11) is arranged and configured to face the surface to be cleaned (Fig. 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalemba (CN1889881 A) in view of Moes (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0180105 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kalemba teaches the suction head according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not teach wherein the wetting arrangement is arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid from at least two liquid supplying positions distributed over the suction head in a direction in which the rotation axes of the two brushes extend.
Moes, however, teaches a suction head (Fig. 1)) wherein the wetting arrangement (liquid channels, 210) is arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid from at least two liquid supplying positions (outfalls, 214) distributed over the suction head in a direction in which the rotation axes of the two brushes extend (112 and 114; Claim 1).
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 wetting arrangement to further include the wetting arrangement is arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid from at least two liquid supplying positions distributed over the suction head in a direction in which the rotation axes of the two brushes extend, as taught by Moes, to provide a suction head that prevents cleaning solution residue in the form of a trail or a series of small puddles of cleaning solution from occurring, thus providing an improved cleaned surface.
Claims 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalemba (CN1889881 A) in view of Gordon et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,392,566 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Kalemba teaches the suction head according to claim 6, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not explicitly teach the wetting arrangement comprises a conduit system configured to transport the direct supply of liquid and to let out the direct supply of liquid at the at least one liquid supplying position.
Gordon, however, teaches a cleaning machine and a wetting arrangement (Fig. 5) comprising a conduit system (Fig. 5) configured to transport the direct supply of liquid (Claim 1) and to let out the direct supply of liquid at the at least one liquid supplying position (120 and 122; Figs. 4 and 5).
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 wetting arrangement to further include a conduit system configured to transport the direct supply of liquid and to let out the direct supply of liquid at the at least one liquid supplying position, as taught by Gordon, to provide a suction head that provides enhances security by protecting wires from physical damage and shock.
Regarding Claim 8, Kalemba, as modified, teaches the suction head according to claim 7, as discussed above.
PNG
media_image2.png
561
950
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kalemba does not explicitly teach the conduit system comprises at least one conduit extending through the elongated intermediate component.
Gordon, however, teaches the conduit system comprises at least one conduit (794) extending through the elongated intermediate component (Annotated Fig. 4; the spray bar, 122 is directly connected to conduit 794, thus the at least one conduit extending through the elongated intermediate component.
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 wetting arrangement to further include the conduit system comprises at least one conduit extending through the elongated intermediate component, as taught by Gordon, to provide a suction head that provides enhances security by protecting wires from physical damage and shock.
Regarding Claim 9, Kalemba, as modified, teaches the suction head according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not explicitly teach the conduit system comprises at least one main conduit and at least one branch conduit and wherein the at least one branch conduit is coupled to the at least one main conduit
Gordon, however, teaches the conduit system (Fig. 5) comprises at least one main conduit (790) and at least one branch conduit (815) and wherein the at least one branch conduit (790) is coupled to the at least one main conduit (790) and extends from the at least one main conduit (790) towards the at least one liquid supplying position (120; Fig. 5).
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 wetting arrangement to further include the conduit system comprises at least one main conduit and at least one branch conduit and wherein the at least one branch conduit is coupled to the at least one main conduit
Regarding Claim 10, Kalemba, as modified, teaches the suction head according to claim 9, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not explicitly teach a restriction element in fluid communication with the at least one main conduit and the at least one branch conduit wherein the restriction element is provided with a restriction opening configured to allow the direct supply of liquid to pass in a direction from the at least one main conduit towards the at least one branch conduit , and wherein the restriction element or an assembly of components in which the restriction element is included is removably arranged in the suction head.
Gordon, however, teaches a restriction element (main shut off valve, 820) in fluid communication with the at least one main conduit (790) and the at least one branch conduit (815) wherein the restriction element (820) is provided with a restriction opening configured to allow the direct supply of liquid to pass in a direction from the at least one main conduit (790) towards the at least one branch conduit (815) , and wherein the restriction element (820) or an assembly of components in which the restriction element is included is removably arranged in the suction head (Fig. 2).
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 wetting arrangement to further include a restriction element in fluid communication with the at least one main conduit and the at least one branch conduit wherein the restriction element is provided with a restriction opening configured to allow the direct supply of liquid to pass in a direction from the at least one main conduit towards the at least one branch conduit , and wherein the restriction element or an assembly of components in which the restriction element is included is removably arranged in the suction head, as taught by Gordon, to provide a suction head that allows for components to be easily accessed, thus saving time for replacements.
Claims 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalemba (CN1889881 A) in view of Xuefeng (CN111839380 A) – see attached Machine translation.
Regarding Claim 11, Kalemba teaches the suction head according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not teach at least one wheel that is rotatably arranged on the suction head,
Xuefeng, however, teaches at least one wheel (roller, 33) that is rotatably arranged on the head (Fig. 2) , wherein the at least one wheel (33) is configured to be in contact with the surface to be cleaned (Paragraph [0024]), and wherein the wetting arrangement (wetting component, 30 with liquid tank, 31) is further arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid to the at least one wheel (Paragraph [0025] and [0027]).
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 wetting arrangement to further include at least one wheel that is rotatably arranged on the suction head,the surface to be cleaned, and wherein the wetting arrangement is further arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid to the at least one wheel, as taught by Xuefeng, to provide a suction head that improves cleaning efficiency.
Regarding Claim 12, Kalemba, as modified, teaches the suction head according to claim 11, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not teach the wetting arrangement is arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid to the at least one wheel at the position of the at least one wheel from outside of the at least one wheel.
Xuefeng, however, teaches the wetting arrangement is arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid to the at least one wheel (33) at the position of the at least one wheel (Fig. 2) from outside of the at least one wheel (Paragraph [0025] and [0027]).
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 wetting arrangement to further include the wetting arrangement is arranged and configured to enable the direct supply of liquid to the at least one wheel at the position of the at least one wheel from outside of the at least one wheel, as taught by Xuefeng, to provide a suction head that improves cleaning efficiency.
Xuefeng does not explicitly teach the wheel having a tread; however, 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 liquid supplying position to further include the wheel having a tread, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13, Kalemba, as modified, teaches the suction head according to claim 11, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not teach the at least one wheel is arranged so that the two rotating brushes are enabled to interact with the wheel during operation of the head.
Xuefeng, however, teaches the at least one wheel (33) is arranged so that the two rotating brushes (cleaning disks,42 and 43 with wiping roller, 54; Fig. 2) and are enabled to interact with the wheel (33) during operation of the head (Paragraphs [0025] and [0030]).
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 wetting arrangement to further include the at least one wheel is arranged so that the two rotating brushes are enabled to interact with the wheel during operation of the head, as taught by Xuefeng, to provide a suction head that improves cleaning efficiency.
Regarding Claim 13, Kalemba, as modified, teaches the suction head according to claim 11, as discussed above.
Kalemba as modified by Xuefeng does not teach the at least one wheel is located in the area between the two brushes; however, 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 liquid supplying position to further include at least one wheel is located in the area between the two brushes, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalemba (CN1889881 A) in view of Nguyen (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0069137 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kalemba, as modified, teaches the suction head according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kalemba does not explicitly teach a cordless vacuum cleaner.
Nguyen, however, teaches a cordless vacuum cleaner (Paragraph [0097]) and a suction head (base assembly, 120; Fig. 2).
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 wetting arrangement to further include a cordless vacuum cleaner, as taught by Nguyen, to provide a cleaner which allows complete freedom of movement, thus enhancing the mobility of the cleaner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated February 25, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues the liquid supplying position is not at or below the rotational axes of both brushes; however, 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 liquid supplying position to further include the at least one liquid supplying position is at a level of the rotation axes of the two brushes or at a lower level than the level of the rotation axis of the brus, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance of a component. A change in size/distance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723