Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/346,418

NOZZLE AND CLEANER

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 03, 2023
Priority
Jul 27, 2022 — JP 2022-119599
Examiner
FORDJOUR, SARAH AKYAA
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Makita Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allowance Rate
71 granted / 132 resolved
-16.2% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
185
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
84.2%
+44.2% vs TC avg
§102
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§112
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 132 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION NOZZLE AND CLEANER 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 § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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) 1-6,17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagwell (US7069620B2). Regarding claim 1, Bagwell teaches a main body (50, figure 3) having a lower surface that faces a cleaning target surface; a groove (63+64+66, figure 3) provided in the lower surface to be recessed upward from the lower surface; and a suction port (60, figure 2) provided inside the groove to face the cleaning target surface, wherein the groove includes: a first groove (63+64, figure 3); and a second groove (66, figure 3), at least a part of which is provided rearward of the first groove, and a depth H1 of the first groove is deeper than a depth H2 of the second groove (figure 3). Regarding claim 2, Bagwell teaches wherein a center of the groove (see 63+64+66, figure 3) and a center of the main body (see center of 50, figure 3) coincide (see 60, figure 3) with each other in a left-right direction (figure 3). Regarding claim 3, Bagwell teaches wherein a center of the first groove (center of 63 +64, figure 3) and a center of the second groove (center of 66, figure 3) coincide (see 60, figure 3) with each other in the left-right direction. Regarding claim 4, Bagwell teaches wherein a dimension B1 (see length of 63+64, figure 3 in left right direction) of the first groove in the left-right direction and a dimension B2 (see length of 66, figure 3 in left right direction) of the second groove in the left-right direction satisfy a condition: B1 < B2 (see figure 3). Regarding claim 5, Bagwell teaches wherein a center of the suction port (see center of 60, figure 3) and a center of the groove (63+64+66, figure 3) coincide with each other in the left-right direction. Regarding claim 6, Bagwell teaches wherein a front end of the suction port (see front of 60, figure 3) and a front end (see 80, figure 3) of the first groove (63+64, figure 3) coincide with each other, and a rear end of the suction port (see rear of 60, figure 3) and a front end (82, figure 3) of the second groove (66, figure 3) coincide with each other (figure 3). Regarding claim 17, Bagwell teaches wherein a center of the suction port (see center of 60, figure 3) and a center of the groove (63+64+66, figure 3) coincide with each other in the left-right direction. Regarding claim 18, Bagwell teaches wherein a front end of the suction port (see front of 60, figure 3) and a front end (see 80, figure 3) of the first groove (63+64, figure 3) coincide with each other, and a rear end of the suction port (see rear of 60, figure 3) and a front end (82, figure 3) of the second groove (66, figure 3) coincide with each other (figure 3). Regarding claim 19, Bagwell teaches the nozzle according to claim 1 (see above); a motor; and a fan that is rotated by the motor and generates a suction force at the suction port of the nozzle (see abstract, col 1 line 5-35 discloses the nozzle can be used for a canister cleaner that generates suction force using motor). Claim(s) 1-5,17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marchal (EP2457481A1). Regarding claim 1, Marchal teaches a main body (2, figure 1) having a lower surface that faces a cleaning target surface; a groove (see area surrounding 80, figures 1-2) provided in the lower surface to be recessed upward from the lower surface; and a suction port (20,figure 2) provided inside the groove to face the cleaning target surface, wherein the groove includes: a first groove (see annotated figure below); and a second groove (see annotated figure below), at least a part of which is provided rearward of the first groove, and a depth H1 of the first groove is deeper than a depth H2 of the second groove (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 611 674 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Marchal teaches wherein a center of the groove (see area surrounding 80, figure 1) and a center of the main body (center of 2 in left right direction is 20) coincide with each other in a left-right direction (20 and 80 coincide in left-right direction see annotated figure below). PNG media_image2.png 611 674 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3, Marchal teaches wherein a center of the first groove and a center of the second groove coincide with (each center of the first groove and second groove coincide with eachother in the left and right direction) each other in the left-right direction (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image3.png 611 674 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Marchal teaches wherein a dimension B1 of the first groove in the left-right direction and a dimension B2 of the second groove in the left-right direction satisfy a condition: B1 < B2 (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image4.png 768 791 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Marchal teaches wherein a center of the suction port (see 20, figure 1) and a center of the groove (area surrounding 80, figure 2) coincide with each other in the left-right direction (see annotated figure above). Regarding claim 17, Marchal teaches wherein a center of the suction port (see 20, figure 1) and a center of the groove (see area surrounding 80, figure 2) coincide with each other in the left-right direction (see annotated figure above). Regarding claim 19, the nozzle according to claim 1 (see above); a motor; and a fan that is rotated by the motor and generates a suction force at the suction port of the nozzle (see claim 9, and Marchall disclsoes “The sole 2 of the nozzle comprises a suction port 21 in aeraulic connection with a suction tube 7 connected to the vacuum cleaner.”) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagwell (US7069620B2). Regarding claim 7, Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and wherein a center of the first groove (center of 63 +64, figure 3) and the center of the main body (see center of 50, figure 3) coincide with each other in the left-right direction, and a dimension B1 (see length of 63+64, figure 3 in left right direction ) of the first groove in the left-right direction and a dimension Bt (see length of 50, figure 3 in left right direction) of the main body in the left-right direction but fails to teach the condition: B1 ≥ 0.5×Bt. Because Bagwell teaches the B1 and Bt dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to try and modify the dimensions of B1 and Bt to have any desired size, including having the dimensions satisfy B1 ≥ 0.5×Bt in an attempt to optimize floor tool to improve the pickup performance, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim 8, Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and wherein a first width W1 (see Lc, figure 3) indicating a dimension of the first groove in a front-rear direction and the depth H2 (see depth of 66, figure 3; col 3 lines 1-15) ,but fails to teach the condition: W1 ≥ H2. Because Bagwell teaches the W1 and H2 dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to try and modify the dimensions of W1 and H2 to have any desired size, including having the dimensions satisfy W1 ≥ H2 in an attempt to optimize floor tool to improve the pickup performance, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim 9, Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and wherein the first width W1 (see Lc, figure 3) indicating the dimension of the first groove in the front-rear direction and a total width Wt (Lt-(Lc+width of 65 in the front-rear direction), figure 3) indicating a sum of the dimension of the first groove and the dimension of the second groove in the front-rear direction ,but fails to teach the condition: W1 ≤ 0.9×Wt. Because Bagwell teaches the W1 and Wt dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to try and modify the dimensions of W1 and Wt to have any desired size, including having the dimensions satisfy W1 ≤ 0.9×Wt in an attempt to optimize floor tool to improve the pickup performance, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim 10, Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and wherein a depth H3 indicating a difference (see figure 3) between the depth H1 (63 and 64, figure 3) and the depth H2 (see 66, figure 3) ,but fails to teach the condition: H3 ≥ 1.5 mm. Because Bagwell teaches the H3 dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to try and modify the dimensions of H3 to have any desired size, including having the dimensions satisfy H3 ≥ 1.5 mm in an attempt to optimize floor tool to improve the pickup performance, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure. Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagwell (US7069620B2) in view of Lee (US20060093501A1). Regarding claim 11, Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and wherein an inner surface (77, figure 4) of the first groove includes: a first rear surface (figure 4) connected to a front end of the second groove (66, figure 3-4) and facing forward; a first front surface (figure 4) disposed forward of the first rear surface and facing the first rear surface; and a first lower surface (see 76, figure 4) connecting an upper end of the first rear surface to an upper end of the first front surface, but fails to teach the nozzle includes a vertical rib extending in the up-down direction, at least a part of which is provided on the first front surface, and the vertical rib is disposed in plurality at intervals in the left-right direction. Lee teaches a suction port assembly the nozzle (figure 2) includes a vertical rib (320, figure 2) extending in the up-down direction, at least a part of which is provided on the first front surface, and the vertical rib is disposed in plurality at intervals in the left-right direction (figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bagwell to includes a vertical rib extending in the up-down direction, at least a part of which is provided on the first front surface, and the vertical rib is disposed in plurality at intervals in the left-right direction based on teachings of Lee. This modification would help reduce noise (see para 0053-0055 of Lee) Regarding claim 12, Bagwell as modified in claim 11 teaches wherein, among the vertical ribs disposed in the left-right direction, the vertical rib disposed on a leftmost side is disposed leftward of a left end of the suction port, and the vertical rib disposed on a rightmost side is disposed rightward of a right end of the suction port (see Lee 320 within in 211,212,221, figures 2-3). Regarding claim 13, Bagwell as modified in claim 11 teaches wherein a height T1 (see Lee para 0012,0018,0059,0064, figure 2) indicating a protrusion amount of the vertical rib from the first front surface satisfies ,but fails to teach the condition: T1 ≥ 1.5 mm. Because Bagwell teaches the T1 dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to try and modify the dimensions of T1 to have any desired size, including having the dimensions satisfy T1 ≥ 1.5 mm in an attempt to optimize floor tool to eliminate noise , as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim 14, Bagwell as modified in claim 11 teaches wherein a thickness D1 (see Lee 320, figure 2) indicating a dimension of the vertical rib in the left-right direction ,but fails to teach the condition: D1 ≤ 3.0 mm. Because Bagwell teaches the D1 dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to try and modify the dimensions of D1 to have any desired size, including having the dimensions satisfy D1 ≥ 3.0 mm in an attempt to optimize floor tool to eliminate noise , as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim 15, Bagwell as modified in claim 11 wherein an interval G1 between a pair of the vertical ribs (see Lee 320, figure 2) adjacent to each other in the left-right direction ,but fails to teach the condition: G1 ≤ 4.0 mm. Because Bagwell teaches the G1 dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to try and modify the dimensions of G1 to have any desired size, including having the dimensions satisfy G1 ≤ 4.0 mm in an attempt to optimize floor tool to eliminate noise , as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim 16, Bagwell as modified in claim 11 teaches wherein an inner surface of the second groove (see Bagwell 66, figures 3-4) includes: a second lower surface connected to a lower end of the first rear surface; and a second rear surface connected to a rear end of the second lower surface and facing forward, the main body includes (see Bagwell 50, figures 3-4): a left side surface disposed at a boundary between the second lower surface disposed leftward of the suction port and a left end of the suction port (see Bagwell 60, figures 3-4); and a right side surface disposed at a boundary between the second lower surface disposed rightward of the suction port and a right end of the suction port (see Bagwell, figures 3-4), the nozzle includes a lateral rib (see Lee 320, figure 2) provided on each of the left side surface and the right side surface and extending in the up-down direction, and the lateral rib is disposed in plurality at intervals in the front-rear direction (see Lee 320, figure 2). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE202009017029U1 discloses a suction device for a vacuum cleaner . CN106175589A discloses a ground brush assembly for vacuum cleaner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm. 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. /SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Jan 20, 2026
Response Filed
May 27, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12520976
SURFACE CLEANING APPARATUS
4y 0m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12515293
Vibratory Grinding Device
5y 1m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12454020
CIRCULAR SAW APPARATUS WITH INTEGRATED MULTISTAGE FILTRATION SYSTEM
6y 8m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Patent 12419475
VACUUM CLEANER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12419473
HANDHELD EXTRACTION CLEANER
11m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+30.9%)
3y 0m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 132 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month