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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to the communication filed 07/12/2024. Claims 1-25 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the bristle strips” in line 5. It appears this limitation should read --the one or more bristle strips-- so as to provide consistency in the use of claim terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each pair of bristle strips" in line 3-4. It is unclear how “each” relates to or is further limiting of the “one ... bristle strip(s)”. It appears this limitation should read --the one or more pairs of bristle strips-- so as to properly refer to the introduced “one or more pairs of bristle strips” earlier in the claim.
Claims 2-20 and 24-25 are indefinite based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "each bristle strip" in line 2. It is unclear how “each” relates to or is further limiting of the “one ... bristle strip(s)”. It appears this limitation should read --the one or more bristle strips-- so as to properly refer to the introduced “one or more bristle strips” earlier in the claim.
Claim 22 is indefinite based on its dependence on claim 21.
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(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 9,693,663 to Kasper (Kasper).
In Reference to Claim 21
Kasper discloses a brushbar (Fig. 1, 40) for a vacuum cleaner (abstract) comprising one or more bristle strips (Fig. 2, 66 for instance) arranged helically about a body (of 40 for instance), wherein each bristle strip comprises a strip of castellated bristles (56 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 22
Kasper discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 21, wherein the brushbar (40) comprises a plurality of bristle strips (66), and castellations in the bristle strips are aligned in planes normal to a central longitudinal axis of the brushbar (series of 56 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 23
Kasper discloses a cleaner head (Fig. 2, 14) for a vacuum cleaner (abstract) comprising a housing having a suction chamber (38 for instance), brushbar (40) rotatably mounted within the suction chamber, a suction opening (42) formed in an underside of the housing, and one or more bars that extend across the suction opening (see col 5, ll 1-4, not shown), wherein the brushbar comprises one or more bristle strips (66 for instance) arranged helically about a body (about body 40 for instance), the bristle strips project downward beyond the bars (to clear the ribs and sweep the surface to be cleaned for instance, see col 5, ll 1-4 and col 4, ll 10-12), and the bristle strips comprise castellations in the bristles that are aligned with the bars (56, see also col 5, ll 1-4).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 16 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,092,153 to Shim et al. (Shim) in view of GB 1,023,556 to Lewis et al. (Lewis).
In Reference to Claim 1
Shim discloses a brushbar (Fig. 1, 100 for instance) for a vacuum cleaner (10 for instance) comprising:
a cylindrical body (110, see figures 2 and 3); one or more pairs of bristle strips (Fig. 3, bristle of 160 and 180 for instance) arranged about the body (110, see also figure 2), each pair of bristle strips comprising a first strip of first bristles (160 for instance) and a second strip of second bristles (180 for instance), the first bristles being stiffer and shorter than the second bristles (col 2, ll 61-65 and col 3, ll 11-15).
Shim does not teach the bristle strips arranged “... helically ...” or “... one or more plush strips arranged helically about the body, the plush strips being arranged on either side of each pair of bristle strips and comprising a plush of fibres ....”
Lewis is related to a brushbar for a vacuum cleaner (pg 1, ll 22-23 and 32-35), as the claimed invention, and teaches bristle strips (Fig. 1, 9 for instance) arranged helically (page 2, ll 51-54) about a cylindrical body of the brushbar (5 for instance, see also figure 2), and also teaches one or more plush strips (10 for instance) arranged helically about the body (as seen in figure 1 for instance), the plush strips (10) being arranged on either side of the bristle strips (as seen in figure 1 for instance) and comprising a plush of fibres (polishing material for instance, see page 3, ll 54-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the one or more pairs of bristle strips (of Shim) are arranged helically (as taught by Lewis) about the body (of Shim), and wherein one or more plush strips (as taught by Lewis) are arranged helically (as taught by Lewis) about the body (of Shim), the plush strips (as taught by Lewis) being arranged on either side (as on either side of the strips as taught by Lewis) of each pair of bristle strips (of Shim) and comprising a plush of fibres (as taught by Lewis), so as to use an art known technique (of arranging brush strips helically about a brushbar and the use of plush strips in conjunction with brush strips as taught by Lewis) into the system of Shim and predictably provide a cleaning head with multiple cleaning functions.
In Reference to Claim 2
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second bristles are formed of different materials (Shim, col 2, ll 61-62).
In Reference to Claim 4
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second strip comprises third bristles (Shim Fig. 6, teaching an embodiment having a first strip or 330 for instance, a second strip of 310 and 320 for instance, and having third bristles 320 for instance) located adjacent to the second bristles (Shim second bristles 310 for instance), and the third bristles are stiffer than the second bristles (the bristles having different materials and different rigidities, see Shim col 5, ll 4-7 and col 6, ll 9-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the second strip comprises third bristles located adjacent to the second bristles, and the third bristles are stiffer than the second bristles (as further taught by Shim), so as use an art known technique (of using different groupings of bristles and having different rigidities as further taught by Shim) and predictably provide versatility of the cleaner head of the system.
In Reference to Claim 6
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bristles of the second strip are canted in a direction away from the first strip (as further taught by Shim of brushes within the system, see col 4, ll 16-18 for instance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the bristles of the second strip are canted in a direction away from the first strip (as further taught by Shim), so as use an art known technique (of using angling of bristles within the system as further taught by Shim) and predictably provide versatility of the cleaner head of the system.
In Reference to Claim 7
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 6, wherein the bristles of the second strip are canted (Shim, bristles of the system being angled for instance and obvious to the second strip, see claim 6), but dos not teach “... at an angle of between 40 and 60 degrees ....”
Regarding the claimed limitations “at an angle of between 40 and 60 degrees”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the predetermined angling of bristles as taught by Shim, col 4, ll 16-18 and col 5, ll 38-41), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shim such that the second strip is at an angle of between 40 and 60 degrees because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 9
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fibres (polishing material as taught by Lewis for instance) have a lower stiffness than the first bristles (the fibres being made of nylon as taught by Lewis, pg. 4, ll 28), and a shorter length than the second bristles (the fibres known to be shorter than bristles, as taught by Lewis, pg. 3, ll 5865). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the fibres have a lower stiffness (as taught by Lewis) than the first bristles (of Shim), and a shorter length (as taught by Lewis) than the second bristles (of Shim), so as use an art known technique (of using fibre material in conjunction with bristles as taught by Lewis) into the system of Shim and predictably provide versatility of the cleaner head of the system.
In Reference to Claim 16
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses a cleaner head (Fig. 1, 100 for instance) for a vacuum cleaner (10 for instance) comprising: a housing having a suction chamber (Shim, of 10, see also col 2, ll 24-26); the brushbar (Shim, 100) as claimed in claim 1, the brushbar being rotatably mounted within the suction chamber; and a suction opening formed on an underside of the housing through which the brushbar is able to agitate a surface (Shim, see col 2, ll 31-40).
In Reference to Claim 24
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses a vacuum cleaner (Shim Fig. 1, 10 for instance) comprising the brushbar (Shim, 110 for instance) as claimed in claim 1.
In Reference to Claim 25
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 24, wherein the vacuum cleaner is an autonomous vacuum cleaner (Shim abstract, robot cleaner for instance).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,092,153 to Shim et al. (Shim) in view of GB 1,023,556 to Lewis et al. (Lewis) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0306957 to Follows et al. (Follows).
In Reference to Claim 3
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 2, except, “... wherein the first bristles are formed of a plastic material, and the second bristles are formed of carbon fibre or a carbon composite material ....”
Follows is related to a brushbar for a vacuum cleaner (abstract) having first bristles and second bristles (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the first bristles are formed of a plastic material (¶ [0011]), and the second bristles are formed of carbon fibre or a carbon composite material (¶ [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the first bristles (of Shim) are formed of a plastic material (as taught by Follows), and the second bristles (of Shim) are formed of carbon fibre or a carbon composite material (as taught by Follows), so as to use an art known technique (of forming multiple bristles of a brushbar system and using various types of materials as taught by Follows) into the system of Shim and predictably form the brushbar of suitable material for operation.
In Reference to Claim 5
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 4, except, “... wherein the second bristles are formed of carbon fibre or a carbon composite material, and the third bristles are formed of a plastic material ....”
Follows is related to a brushbar for a vacuum cleaner (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein some bristles are formed of carbon fibre or a carbon composite material (¶ [0010]), and other bristles are formed of a plastic material (¶ [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the second bristles (of Shim) are formed of carbon fibre or a carbon composite material (of one type of material as taught by Follows), and the third bristles (of Shim) are formed of a plastic material (of another type of material as taught by Follows), so as to use an art known technique (of forming multiple bristles of a brushbar system and using various types of materials as taught by Follows) into the system of Shim and predictably form the brushbar of suitable material for operation.
Claim(s) 10-11, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,092,153 to Shim et al. (Shim) in view of GB 1,023,556 to Lewis et al. (Lewis) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0229075 to Eriksson (Eriksson).
In Reference to Claim 10
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the brushbar comprises a first circumferential spacing between each first strip (9 as taught by Lewis) and an adjacent plush strip (10 as taught by Lewis and on one side of 9, and on side of 330 as modifying of Shim), but does not teach, “... the first circumferential spacing is no smaller than the length of the fibres ....”
Eriksson is related to a brushbar (Fig. 1, 104 for instance) and cleaning members attached to the brushbar (106 and 112 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches a circumferential spacing between the cleaning members (106 and 112) is provided adequately to prevent binding (¶ [0033[).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the first circumferential spacing is adequately provided (as taught by Eriksson), so as to avoid interference of the cleaning members when the brushbar is in operation (Eriksson, ¶ [0033]).
Regarding the claimed limitations “is no smaller than the length of the fibres”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the adequate spacing of adjacent members as taught by Eriksson for instance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shim such that the first circumferential spacing is no smaller than the length of the fibres because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 11
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the brushbar comprises a second circumferential spacing between each second strip (9 as taught by Lewis) and an adjacent plush strip (10 as taught by Lewis and on another side of 9, and on side of 310 as modifying of Shim), but does not teach, “... the second circumferential spacing is no smaller than the length of the second bristles ....”
Eriksson is related to a brushbar (Fig. 1, 104 for instance) and cleaning members attached to the brushbar (106 and 112 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches a circumferential spacing between the cleaning members (106 and 112) is provided adequately to prevent binding (¶ [0033[).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the second circumferential spacing is adequately provided (as taught by Eriksson), so as to avoid interference of the cleaning members when the brushbar is in operation (Eriksson, ¶ [0033]).
Regarding the claimed limitations “is no smaller than the length of the second bristles”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the adequate spacing of adjacent members as taught by Eriksson for instance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shim such that the second circumferential spacing is no smaller than the length of the second bristles because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 14
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, except, “... wherein the brushbar comprises two pairs of bristle strips ....”
Eriksson is related to a brushbar (Fig. 1, 104 for instance) and first and second members attached to the brushbar (Fig. 9, 906 and 912 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the brushbar comprises two pairs of bristle strips (two sets of 906 and 912 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the brushbar comprises two pairs of bristle strips (as taught by Eriksson), so as to use an art known technique (of the make-up of a brushbar and attached cleaning members as taught by Eriksson) into the system of Shim and predictably provide suitable cleaning using the cleaning members as attached to the brushbar.
In Reference to Claim 15
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, except, “... wherein each of the bristle strips spans at least 360 degrees about the body ....”
Eriksson is related to a brushbar (Fig. 1, 104 for instance) and bristle strips (106 and 112 for instance) attached to the brushbar, as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein each of the bristle strips (see 106 in figures 1 and 2A for instance) spans at least 360 degrees about the body (104, as seen extending around the body for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein each of the bristle strips (of Shim) spans at least 360 degrees about the body (as taught by Eriksson), so as to use an art known technique (of the disposition of bristle strips on a brushbar as taught by Eriksson) into Shim and predictably and suitable provide a system for cleaning.
In Reference to Claim 19
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the cleaner head as claimed in claim 16, except explicitly, “... wherein the second strip trails the first strip in a direction of rotation of the brushbar ....”
Eriksson is related to a brushbar (Fig. 1, 104 for instance) and bristle strips (106 and 112 for instance) attached to the brushbar, as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a second strip (112 for instance, see figures 3A and 3B) trails a first strip (106 for instance) in a direction of rotation of the brushbar (see figures 3A and 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the second strip (of Shim) trails (as taught by Eriksson) the first strip (of Shim) in a direction of rotation of the brushbar (as taught by Eriksson), so as to use an art known technique (of positioning of bristles on a brushbar and the rotation thereof as taught by Eriksson) into the system of Shim and predictably form the brushbar to provide cleaning.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,092,153 to Shim et al. (Shim) in view of GB 1,023,556 to Lewis et al. (Lewis) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 9,693,663 to Kasper (Kasper).
In Reference to Claim 12
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 1, except, “... wherein each of the bristle strips comprises castellations in the bristles ....”
Kasper is related to brushbar for a vacuum cleaner (abstract, brushroll for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein each of a series of bristle strips (Fig. 3, 64 for instance) comprises castellations in the bristle (56 in between bristles 66 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein each of the bristle strips (of Shim) comprises castellations in the bristles (as taught by Kasper), so as to allow the brushbar to clear ribs of housing of the vacuum (Kasper, col 9, ll 1-4).
In Reference to Claim 13
Shim, as modified by Lewis and Kasper, discloses the brushbar as claimed in claim 12, wherein castellations in the bristles of the first strip and castellations in the bristles of the second strip are aligned in planes normal to a central longitudinal axis of the brushbar (the series of spaces 56 as taught by Kasper for instance).
In Reference to Claim 18
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the cleaner head as claimed in claim 16, except explicitly, “... wherein the cleaner head comprises one or more bars that extend across the suction opening, the bristle strips project downward beyond the bars, and the bristle strips comprise castellations in the bristles that are aligned with the bars ....”
Kasper is related to brushbar for a vacuum cleaner (abstract, brushroll for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a cleaner head (Fig. 2, 14 for instance) comprises one or more bars (ribs for instance, not shown, see col 5, ll 1-3) that extend across a suction opening (42 for instance), bristle strips (66 for instance) project downward beyond the bars (col 5, ll 1-3 and col 4, ll 10-12, so as to clear the ribs and sweep across surface to be cleaned), and the bristle strips comprise castellations in the bristles that are aligned with the bars (col 5, ll 1-3, bars or ribs not shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the cleaner head (of Shim) comprises one or more bars that extend across the suction opening (as taught by Kasper), the bristle strips (of Shim) project downward beyond the bars (as taught by Kasper), and the bristle strips comprise castellations in the bristles that are aligned with the bars (as taught by Kasper), so as position the brushbar to clean a surface and prevent the inhalation of carpets into the system (Kasper, col 5, ll 1-3 and col 4, ll 10-12).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,092,153 to Shim et al. (Shim) in view of GB 1,023,556 to Lewis et al. (Lewis) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US Patent 4,426,751 to Nordeen (Nordeen).
In Reference to Claim 17
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the cleaner head as claimed in claim 16, except explicitly, “... wherein the cleaner head comprises one or more debris slots formed in a front of the housing through which debris may pass to the suction chamber ....”
Nordeen is related to cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the cleaner head comprises one or more debris slots (Fig. 3, 30 for instance) formed in a front of the housing through which debris may pass to the suction chamber (as seen in the figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the cleaner head (of Shim) comprises one or more debris slots formed in a front of the housing through which debris may pass to the suction chamber (as taught by Nordeen), so as to use an art known technique (of using debris slots in a cleaner housing as taught by Nordeen) into the system of Shim and predictably provide means to suction debris.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,092,153 to Shim et al. (Shim) in view of GB 1,023,556 to Lewis et al. (Lewis) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0229075 to Eriksson (Eriksson) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2006/0076035 to McGee et al. (McGee).
In Reference to Claim 20
Shim, as modified by Lewis, discloses the cleaner head as claimed in claim 16, wherein the cleaner head comprises a drive assembly for driving the brushbar (Shim col 2, ll 32-33, the brushbar configured to be rotated for instance), but does not teach “... the brushbar comprises two pairs of bristle strips, and the drive assembly drives the brushbar at an unloaded speed of between 2500 rpm and 3500 rpm ....”
Eriksson is related to a brushbar (Fig. 1, 104 for instance) and first and second members attached to the brushbar (Fig. 9, 906 and 912 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches the brushbar comprises two pairs of bristle strips (two sets of 906 and 912 for instance).
McGee is also related to brushbar for a vacuum cleaner (abstract, brush arrangement for a cleaning apparatus for instance), as the claimed invent, and teaches a drive assembly drives the brushbar at an unloaded speed of between 2500 rpm and 3500 rpm (¶ [0019]) to control the efficiency of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Shim wherein the brushbar comprises two pairs of bristle strips (as taught by Eriksson), and the drive assembly (of Shim) drives the brushbar at an unloaded speed of between 2500 rpm and 3500 rpm (as taught by McGee), so as to use an art known technique (of the make-up of a brushbar and attached cleaning members as taught by Eriksson and the rotating speed of a brushbar as taught by McGee) into the system of Shim and predictably provide suitable cleaning using the cleaning members as attached to the brushbar and provide efficient cleaning of the system by control of the brushbar speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 claim is deemed to be directed to an nonobvious improvement over the prior art. The claims comprise wherein, in a plane normal to a central longitudinal axis of the brushbar, each pair of bristle strips subtends a first central angle, each plush strip subtends a second central angle, and the second central angle is greater than the first central angle.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show brushbar with various arrangement of bristles, bristles having different heights and different cleaning devices hosting brushbars.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745