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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 01-20-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5,7-17,19-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 6 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 20-21 are newly added. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01-20-2026, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully
considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (as necessitated by
amendment) relies on a different combination of prior art references, not applied in the
prior rejection of record to teach the amendments.
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) 1-5,7-15,17,19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagwell (US7069620B2) in view of Gell (US20100319159A1).
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 which is recessed upward from the lower surface, the groove including a first groove(63+64, figure 3); and a second groove (66, figure 3); and a suction port (60, figure 2) provided inside the groove facing the cleaning target surface, wherein at least a part of the second groove (66, figure 3) is provided rearward of the first groove (63+66, figure 3), and a depth H1 of the first groove is deeper than a depth H2 of the second groove (figure 3), 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).
Bagwell fails to teach a rear end of the suction port and a rear end of the second groove coincide with each other.
Gell teaches a tool for a surface treating appliance that includes a first groove (22, figure 2), suction port (64, figure 2), and a second groove (24, figure 2), wherein a rear end of the suction port (see 60 figure 2 and 7) and a rear end of the second groove (see 24, figure 2 and 7) coincide with each other (figures 2 and 7-8).
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 include a rear end of the suction port and a rear end of the second groove coincide with each other based on the teachings of Gell. This modification would help optimize the performance of the tool for capturing dirt and dust (see para 0008-0011 of Gell)
Regarding claim 2, modified Bagwell teaches
wherein a center of the groove (see Bagwell 63+64+66, figure 3) and a center of the main body (see Bagwell center of 50, figure 3) coincide (see Bagwell 60, figure 3) with each other in a left-right direction (see Bagwell figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bagwell teaches
wherein a center of the first groove (see Bagwell center of 63 +64, figure 3) and a center of the second groove (see Bagwell center of 66, figure 3) coincide (see Bagwell 60, figure 3) with each other in the left-right direction.
Regarding claim 4, modified Bagwell teaches
wherein a dimension B1 (see Bagwell length of 63+64, figure 3 in left right direction) of the first groove in the left-right direction and a dimension B2 (see Bagwell length of 66, figure 3 in left right direction) of the second groove in the left-right direction satisfy a condition:
B1 < B2 (see Bagwell figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, modified Bagwell teaches
wherein a center of the suction port (see center of 60, figure 3) and the center of the groove (63+64+66, figure 3) coincide with each other in the left-right direction.
Regarding claim 7, modified Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and
wherein a center of the first groove (see Bagwell center of 63 +64, figure 3) and the center of the main body (see Bagwell center of 50, figure 3) coincide with each other in the left-right direction, and
a dimension B1 (see Bagwell length of 63+64, figure 3 in left right direction ) of the first groove in the left-right direction and a dimension Bt (see Bagwell 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 modified 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, modified Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and
wherein a first width W1 (see Bagwell Lc, figure 3) indicating a dimension of the first groove in a front-rear direction and the depth H2 (see Bagwell depth of 66, figure 3; col 3 lines 1-15) ,but fails to teach the condition:
W1 ≥ H2.
Because modified 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 Bagwell 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, modified Bagwell teaches all limitations stated above and
wherein a depth H3 indicating a difference (see Bagwell figure 3) between the depth H1 (Bagwell 63 and 64, figure 3) and the depth H2 (see Bagwell 66, figure 3) ,but fails to teach the condition:
H3 ≥ 1.5 mm.
Because modified 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.
Regarding claim 17, modified Bagwell teaches
wherein a center of the suction port (see Bagwell center of 60, figure 3) and the center of the groove (see Bagwell 63+64+66, figure 3) coincide with each other in the left-right direction.
Regarding claim 19, modified 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 Bagwell abstract, col 1 line 5-35 discloses the nozzle can be used for a canister cleaner that generates suction force using motor).
Regarding claim 20, modified Bagwell teaches wherein the rear end of the second groove is at a same position in a front-rear direction as the rear end of the suction port. (see Gell, see 24 aligns with 64, figures 2, 6-8)
Regarding claim 21, modified Bagwell wherein the second groove (see Gell 24 sides on each side of 64, figures 2, 6-8) includes a first portion and a second portion separated from the first portion, the suction port being positioned between the first portion and the second portion.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagwell (US7069620B2) in view of Gell (US20100319159A1) as applied to claim 1 further in view of Lee (US20060093501A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified 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 an 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, the vertical rib is a plurality of vertical ribs, (see Lee 320, figures 2-3) and among the plurality of 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 modified 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 modified 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 modified 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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagwell (US7069620B2) in view of Gell (US20100319159A1), Lee (US20060093501A1). as applied to claim 11 further in view of Hawley (US4777696A).
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), but fails to teach the nozzle includes a lateral rib 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 a plurality of laterals ribs disposed at intervals in the front-rear direction.
Hawley teaches a vacuum cleaner nozzle that includes a lateral rib (180 182, 184 figures 3-4,7) 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 a plurality of laterals ribs disposed at intervals in the front-rear direction. (col 4 lines 55-67, figures 3-4; see 180, 182, 184, figures 3-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bagwell to include nozzle includes a lateral rib 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 a plurality of laterals ribs disposed at intervals in the front-rear direction. This modification would help provide additional strength to the tool (col 3 lines 60-70 of Hawley).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights