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
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received March 3, 2026, amending Claims 1 and 2. Claim 8 was cancelled. Amendments to the Specification and Drawings were presented.
Specification
The amendments to the specification are objected for containing new matter. Several new details are added to the text that where not supported in the original disclosure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of tooth tips of the comb teeth are arranged in an axial direction of the rolling body, a spacing range between two adjacent tooth tips is 2 mm to 6 mm, and each tooth tip has two opposite surfaces and an angle range between the two opposite surfaces of the tooth tips of the comb teeth is 8 to 105o”, “a plurality of first grooves are formed in the surface of the rolling body, each first groove is a combined groove with two grooves as one group, one hard bristle strip is installed in one groove, and one soft bristle strip is installed in the other groove”, “the soft and hard bristle strips, the plurality of hard bristles are arranged on the substrate to form a hard bristle layer, the plurality of soft bristles are arranged on the surface of the substrate to form a soft bristle layer, and the hard bristle layer and the soft bristle layer are disposed in parallel”, spacing range between the two grooves in the combined groove is 1 mm to 15 mm”, “spacing range between the hard bristle layer and the soft bristle layer is 0 mm to 15 mm” and “a plurality of second grooves are formed in the surface of the rolling body, and one soft and hard bristle strip is installed in one second groove” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The Applicant presents Figures 1 and 2 as “overall schematic structural diagrams” that labels housing 1, rolling brush 2, and comb tooth 3. It show what appear to be bristles in Figure 1, however, it is unclear how the hard and soft bristles are specifically arranged as claimed in the rolling brush 2. The Applicant presents Figure 3 as a “schematic diagram”. It appears to show the hard 2.2 and soft 2.3 bristles with different heights attached to a support structure, however, being a schematic diagram, it is unclear if this teaches an actual structural arrangement and how it attaches to the rolling brush. The Applicant presents Figures 4 and 5 as “schematic structural diagrams” that show two different embodiments. These drawings fail to show a bristle arrangement similar to that disclosed in Figure 3 and fail to show the structural features necessary for verifying that the Applicant had possession of a viable solution for the attachment of the bristles to the rotor body with grooves at the time of filing. For these reasons, the drawings fail to show the claimed subject matter.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The Applicant submitted replacement drawings in response to the Drawing Objections in the original Office Action. Unfortunately, these have been reviewed and contain new matter. Therefore, they will not be entered. For example, Figure 6 is a zoomed in detail of Figure 2. While reviewing original Figure 2, even zoomed in, the details shown in Figure 6 are not legible. Therefore, there is no evidence that the shapes of the teeth in new drawing precisely match the originally presented Figure 2.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "each tooth tip has two opposite surfaces and an angle range between the two opposite surfaces of the tooth tips of the heads of the comb teeth is 8 to 105o". The scope of this claim is unclear since there is no claimed structure that allows for the angle to be defined or measured appropriately.
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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doughty US 2014/0259475 (hereafter Doughty) in view of Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. WO 2023/131769 A1 (hereafter Sapri Siti Aisyah et al.).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Doughty teaches:
1. A floor brush structure, comprising:
a housing (body 110);
a rolling brush (second roller brush 310b), comprising a rolling body (brush core 314), hard bristles (first row 325a of bristles 320, stiffer – Paragraph [0072]) and soft bristles (second row 325b of bristles 330, not as stiff – Paragraph [0072]), wherein the rolling body is rotatably disposed in the housing (shown in Figure 6), a plurality of hard bristles are disposed on an outer surface of the rolling body (shown in Figure 10B), a plurality of soft bristles are disposed on the outer surface of the rolling body (shown in Figure 10B), a height of the hard bristles is lower than a height of the soft bristles (shown in Figures 10B and 11), and a height difference range of the hard bristles and the soft bristles is 0.2 mm to 5 mm (first height is less than or equal to 90% of second height, Abstract); and comb teeth (brush bar 200b, Figure 8 and Paragraph [0081]), disposed in the housing and corresponding to the rolling brush (shown in Figure 8), wherein when the rolling brush rotates, tooth tips of the comb teeth are able to be inserted into the hard bristles and the soft bristles to comb hairs tangled on the rolling brush (strips fibers or filaments from bristles, Paragraph [0081]), and a depth range of the tooth tips of heads of the comb teeth inserted into the hard bristles and/or the soft bristles is 0.1 mm to 5 mm (0.010-0.060 inches (.254-1.524 mm), Paragraph [0081]);
wherein a spacing range (gap between as shown in attached figure above) between the hard bristle layer (first row 325a of bristles 320, stiffer – Paragraph [0072]) and the soft bristle layer (second row 325b of bristles 330, not as stiff – Paragraph [0072]) is 0 mm to 15 mm (cord distance Dc is less than about ¼ the first bristle length, Paragraph [0071], see discussion below).
Doughty discloses a first roller brush 310a and a second roller brush 310b as shown in Figure 11. Doughty discloses bristles 320 with a first height is less than or equal to 90% of bristles 330 with a second height, however, he does not provide a length of the bristles or a diameter for the roller body or an overall roller diameter. Based on commercially available prior art robotic cleaning devices, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the overall diameter of the roller is between 0.5 inch and 2.0 inches. Scaling Figure 11 to create an overall brush diameter of 0.5 inch and 2.0 inches results in a measured height difference range of the hard bristles and the soft bristles of 0.53 mm – 2.13mm. Therefore, it appears that the disclosed height difference falls within the claimed 0.2 mm to 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range for the bristle height distance that creates the desired performance taught by Doughty in Paragraph [0078] – “a combination of soft and stiff bristles 320, 330, where the soft bristles 330 are longer than the stiff bristles 320, allows the hair to be trapped in the longer soft bristles 330 and therefore migrate to the collection bin 202b faster. Additionally, the combination of denser and/or stiffer bristles 320, 330 enables retrieval of debris, particularly hair, from myriad surface types. The first s row of bristles 325a are effective at picking up debris from hard flooring and hard carpet. The soft bristles are better at being compliant and releasing collected hair into the plenum”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Doughty discloses a brush bar 200b in Figure 8 configured to be inserted into the soft bristles to remove debris. Doughty does not provide a view showing that the brush bar 200b is configured as a comb with comb teeth as claimed. The reference Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. discloses in Figures 2 and 2A a comb 40 including a plurality of spaced apart teeth 42 that contact bristles 24 of the brush bar 23. In an embodiment shown in Figures 7 and 8, Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. disclose a comb 40a including a plurality of spaced apart angled teeth 44 extending at an angle between 8o and 30o. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brush bar 200b of the Doughty device to be configured as a comb with comb teeth configured as taught by Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. in Figures 7 and 8 with the motivation to more easily penetrate the bristles with minimal risk of bristle deflection as shown in Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. Figure 5.
Doughty discloses a first roller brush 310a and a second roller brush 310b as shown in Figure 11. Doughty discloses bristles 320 and 330 mounted on a substrate with a gap therebetween separated by the distance as shown in Figure 11 that is less than about ¼ the first bristle length, however, he does not provide a dimension for the gap, length of the bristles, diameter for the roller body, or an overall roller diameter. Based on commercially available prior art robotic cleaning devices, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the overall diameter of the roller is between 0.5 inch and 2.0 inches. Scaling Figure 11 to create an overall brush diameter of 0.5 inch and 2.0 inches results in a measured distance of the gap is 0.59mm - 2.34mm. Therefore, it appears that the disclosed size of the gap falls within the claimed 0 mm to 15 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range for the gap between bristles that creates the desired performance taught by Doughty in Paragraph [0078] – “a combination of soft and stiff bristles 320, 330, where the soft bristles 330 are longer than the stiff bristles 320, allows the hair to be trapped in the longer soft bristles 330 and therefore migrate to the collection bin 202b faster. Additionally, the combination of denser and/or stiffer bristles 320, 330 enables retrieval of debris, particularly hair, from myriad surface types. The first s row of bristles 325a are effective at picking up debris from hard flooring and hard carpet. The soft bristles are better at being compliant and releasing collected hair into the plenum”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Amended Claim 2, Doughty teaches:
2. The floor brush structure according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of tooth tips of the comb teeth (Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. – angled teeth 44) are arranged in an axial direction of the rolling body (Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. – Figures 7 and 8), a spacing range between two adjacent tooth tips is 2 mm to 6 mm (see discussion below), and each tooth tip has two opposite surfaces (labeled in attached Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. Figure 13 below) and an angle range between the two opposite surfaces of the tooth tips o (shown in attached Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. Figure 13 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Doughty modified to have a comb arranged as taught by Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. discloses a brush bar 200b configured as a plurality of angled teeth 44 at an angle between 8o and 30o, spaced as shown in Figures 7 and 8. These figures show comb teeth similar to the size and spacing taught by the Applicant’s Figure 2. However, Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. does not provide a dimension for the spacing. Since it would have been obvious that these device are substantially similar in overall size, it would have been obvious that the spacing would be similar also. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the comb teeth to optimize the collection of hair with a minimal number of teeth that create friction, therefore, identifying a spacing such as 2mm to 6mm would merely be determine through routine testing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 3, Doughty teaches:
3. The floor brush structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of hard bristles (first row 325a of bristles 320, stiffer – Paragraph [0072]) are arranged on a surface of one substrate (labeled in attached figure below) to form a plurality of hard bristle strips (shown in attached figure below), the plurality of soft bristles (second row 325b of bristles 330, not as stiff – Paragraph [0072]) are arranged on a surface of one substrate (labeled in attached figure below) to form a plurality of soft bristle strips (shown in attached figure below), and the hard bristle strips and the soft bristle strips are divided into a plurality of groups of one hard bristle strip and one soft bristle strip to be disposed on a surface of the rolling body (brush core 314)(shown in attached figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Doughty teaches:
4. The floor brush structure according to claim 3, wherein a plurality of first grooves (labeled in attached figure above) are formed in the surface of the rolling body (brush core 314), each first groove is a combined groove with two grooves as one group, one hard bristle strip (strip formed by first row 325a of bristles 320, stiffer – Paragraph [0072]) is installed in one groove (labeled in attached figure above), and one soft bristle strip (strip formed by second row 325b of bristles 330, not as stiff – Paragraph [0072]) is installed in the other groove (labeled in attached figure above).
Regarding Claim 5, Doughty teaches:
5. The floor brush structure according to claim 4, wherein a spacing range between the two grooves (labeled in attached figure above) in the combined groove is 1 mm to 15 mm (see discussion below).
Doughty discloses a first roller brush 310a and a second roller brush 310b as shown in Figure 11. Doughty discloses bristles 320 and 330 mounted on a substrate that installs into T-shaped channel within the brush core 314 forming two grooves separated by the distance as shown in Figure 11, however, he does not provide a dimension for the T-shaped channel or a diameter for the roller body or an overall roller diameter. Based on commercially available prior art robotic cleaning devices, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the overall diameter of the roller is between 0.5 inch and 2.0 inches. Scaling Figure 11 to create an overall brush diameter of 0.5 inch and 2.0 inches results in a measured distance between the two grooves of 2.19mm - 8.76mm. Therefore, it appears that the disclosed distance between the two grooves falls within the claimed 1 mm to 15 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the substrate and T-shaped channel within the brush core to provide distance between the two grooves that creates a secure attachment between the part as described by Doughty in Paragraph [0077] – “The brush element 370 includes an anchor 372 defining a T-shape and complimentary sized for slidable receipt into the T-shaped channel 360, and at least one longitudinal row of bristles 318, 320, 330 or a vane 340 attached to the anchor 372”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 6, Doughty teaches:
6. The floor brush structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of soft bristles (second row 325b of bristles 330, not as stiff – Paragraph [0072]) and the plurality of hard bristles (first row 325a of bristles 320, stiffer – Paragraph [0072]) are disposed on a surface of one substrate (labeled in attached figure above) at the same time (shown in attached figure above) to form a plurality of soft and hard bristle strips (shown in attached figure above), and the soft and hard bristle strips are disposed on a surface of the rolling body (brush core 314)(shown in attached figure above).
Regarding Claim 7, Doughty teaches:
7. The floor brush structure according to claim 6, wherein in the soft (strip formed by second row 325b of bristles 330, not as stiff – Paragraph [0072]) and hard bristle strips (strip formed by first row 325a of bristles 320, stiffer – Paragraph [0072]), the plurality of hard bristles are arranged on the substrate (labeled in attached figure above) to form a hard bristle layer (shown in attached figure above), the plurality of soft bristles are arranged on the surface of the substrate to form a soft bristle layer (shown in attached figure above), and the hard bristle layer and the soft bristle layer are disposed in parallel (shown in attached figure above).
Regarding Claim 9, Doughty teaches:
9. The floor brush structure according to claim 7, wherein a plurality of second grooves (labeled in attached figure above) are formed in the surface of the rolling body (brush core 314), and one soft (strip formed by second row 325b of bristles 330, not as stiff – Paragraph [0072]) and hard bristle strip (strip formed by first row 325a of bristles 320, stiffer – Paragraph [0072]) is installed in one second groove (shown in attached figure above)(no period)
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objection
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them unsatisfactory. In this case, new matter was introduce into the replacement drawings.
Clam Objection
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the examiner withdraws the previous Claim Objection of Claim 9.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s amendments and found them unsatisfactory. Therefore, the examiner maintains the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed March 3, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 and 9 under Doughty US 2014/0259475 in view of Sapri Siti Aisyah et al. WO 2023/131769 A1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been modified to reflect the current claim language.
In teaching the dimensions missing in Doughty, the Examiner cites that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the roller shown in Doughty’s iROBOT surface cleaning robot range between 0.5” and 2.0”. These iROBOT cleaning robots and replacement rollers were available commercially before the effective filing date. If the exact iROBOT model were identified by Doughty, the dimension could be measured on actual prior art commercial parts. The Applicant argues that the Examiner’s assumption is inappropriate and that common cleaning roller brush diameter may be at least 10.2 inches, not between 0.5 inch and 2.0 inches as presented by the Examiner. Using Doughty Figure 6 to scale the size of the iROBOT device with the Applicant’s 10.2 inch diameter roll, the device would scale to be 81.25” (6’9.25”) front to back and 25” (2’1”) tall. It is not credible to believe that the iROBOT device taught by Doughty would be over 2 feet tall and 6.5 feet in length. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments based on this 10.2 in diameter dimension are not persuasive.
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights