The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “airflow directing component” in Claims 8 and 9, “tube shaped element” in Claims 8-11, “elongated intermediate component” in Claims 12 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. CN 108903798 A (hereafter Liu et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. anticipates:
1. A suction head (rolling brush assembly 20) configured to be applied in a vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner) and to perform a cleaning action on a surface (ground), the suction head comprising:
a housing (ground brush shell 31) that includes a coupling area (at air outlet 121) configured to enable coupling of the housing to an air suction source of the vacuum cleaner (shown in Figure 1),
two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) in a substantially parallel arrangement in the housing (shown in Figures 2 and 3), wherein each of the two brushes is rotatable about a rotation axis (rotation shown in attached Figure 2 below) and is configured to interact with the surface to be cleaned, and wherein each of the two brushes is designed to be capable to pick up liquids from the surface (both brushes in combination with a suction source would be at least minimally capable of picking up liquid from the surface),
wherein a surface (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) of the housing facing the two brushes comprises two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 below),
wherein each of the two adjacent concavely curved areas covers a portion of a respective one of the two brushes (shown in attached Figure 2 below),
wherein the surface of the housing facing the two brushes is provided with an outlet opening (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) that is in fluid communication with the coupling area (shown in attached Figure 2 below), and
wherein the outlet opening is at a position of an interface of the two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) and is dimensioned to cover only a portion of a dimension of the two brushes in a longitudinal direction (l) being the direction in which the rotation axes of the two brushes extend (shown in attached Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Liu et al. anticipates:
4. The suction head of claim 1, wherein each of the two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the surface (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the housing (ground brush shell 31) facing the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) covers at least a portion of the respective one of the two brushes being a top half of the brush (shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu et al. anticipates:
6. The suction head of claim 1, wherein each of the two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the surface (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the housing (ground brush shell 31) facing the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) covers the respective one of the two brushes along entire dimension of the brush in the longitudinal direction (l)(covered from top view of ground brush shell 31).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu et al. anticipates:
7. The suction head of claim 1, wherein an operational shape of each of the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) is generally the shape of a cylinder having a circular periphery (shown in Figures 2 and 3), wherein each of the two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the surface (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the housing (ground brush shell 31) facing the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) covers the respective one of the two brushes at the position of a portion of a curved operational outline thereof, and wherein the surface of the housing facing the two brushes also comprises areas covering the ends (labeled in attached Figure 3 below) of the two brushes (shown in Figures 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
758
996
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Liu et al. anticipates:
12. The suction head of claim 1, further comprising an elongated intermediate component (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) that is located in an area (shown in attached Figure 2 above) between the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22), and wherein the elongated intermediate component comprises two concavely curved portions (shown in attached Figure 2 above) configured to cover portions of the two brushes (shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu et al. anticipates:
13. The suction head of claim 12, wherein the elongated intermediate component (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) is suspended from a portion (sidewalls as shown in Figure 3) of the housing (ground brush shell 31) of the suction head (rolling brush assembly 20) at a position (concentric with - as shown in attached Figure 2 above) of the two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the surface (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the housing (ground brush shell 31) facing the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 108903798 A (hereafter Liu et al.) in view of obvious size and design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu et al. teaches:
2. The suction head of claim 1, wherein each of the two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the surface (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the housing (ground brush shell 31) facing the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) follows an operational outline of the portion of the respective one of the two brushes at a distance that is at most 10 mm (see discussion below).
Liu et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing any dimensions that would allow the claim limitation to be measured. Liu et al. discloses in Figure 2 two different distance measurements for first brush 21 and second brush 22 with the first brush being almost coincident. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the device for the intended operation such that at least one of the dimensions is less than 10mm as claimed with the motivation to achieve a desired gap for debris passage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu et al. teaches:
3. The suction head of claim 2, wherein each of the two adjacent concavely curved areas (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the surface (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the housing (ground brush shell 31) facing the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) follows the operational outline of the portion of the respective one of the two brushes at a distance in a range of 0 mm to 2 mm (see discussion below).
Liu et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing any dimensions that would allow the claim limitation to be measured. Liu et al. discloses in Figure 2 two different distance measurements for first brush 21 and second brush 22 with the first brush being almost coincident. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the device for the intended operation such that at least one of the dimensions is between 0 mm and 2 mm as claimed with the motivation to achieve a desired gap for debris passage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu et al. teaches:
5. The suction head of claim 1, wherein at least 65% of a dimension (longitudinal length dimension selected) of each of the two brushes (first brush 21 and second brush 22) about the respective rotation axis (rotation shown in attached Figure 2 above) is covered at a distance in a range of 0 mm to 2 mm (see discussion below).
Liu et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing any dimensions that would allow the claim limitation to be measured. Liu et al. discloses in Figure 2 two different distance measurements for first brush 21 and second brush 22 with the first brush being almost coincident. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the device for the intended operation such that at least one of the dimensions is between 0 mm and 2 mm as claimed with the motivation to achieve a desired gap for debris passage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 14, Liu et al. teaches:
14. The suction head of claim 1, further comprising a wetting arrangement (see discussion below) 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 (see discussion below).
Liu et al. discloses a vacuum cleaner, however, although the device appears to be structurally capable, he does not specifically identify it as wet vacuum cleaner. The claim does not require any specific structure of the actual device to provide a wetting arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separately employ a wetting arrangement, through an external supply, to at least one area of the surface to be cleaned that is later removed by the Liu et al. device during a cleaning operation with the motivation to add an anti-static or antibacterial treatment to the cleaning surface.
Regarding Claim 15, Liu et al. teaches:
15. A cordless vacuum cleaner (portable vacuum cleaner), comprising the suction head (rolling brush assembly 20) of claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection).
Liu et al. discloses a portable vacuum cleaner; however, he does not specifically identify it as a cordless vacuum cleaner. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Liu et al. device to be powered by a battery, therefore cordless as claimed, because it is old and well known to employ batteries as a replacement for a power cord in vacuum cleaners with the motivation to provide a more convenient user operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of vacuum cleaners with dual brush arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723