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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2024 and 01/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to because 1) claim 3 recites there are a first plurality of filaments and a second plurality of filaments, but no figure shows there are two kinds of filaments; 2) claim 3 recites the second plurality of filaments can be co-planar with a side surface of the main body, but no figure shows the recited feature; and 3) claims 12 and 26 recite the controllable motor assembly is disposed within the cleaning roller and the first belt is coupled to the cleaning roller , but no figure shows the recited feature . 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. Claim Objections Claim s 3, 9, 12, 17, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 3 and 17, lines 1-2, the phrase may be amended as “the plurality of filaments include s a first plurality of filaments”. In claim 9, the phrase s may be amended as “the drive rod via …” in line 7, “first gear cause rotation of the second gear: and ” in line 10, and “ … and coupled to the edge cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the edge cleaner rod and a filament ring via … ” in line s 11- 12 . In claim 12, the phrase s may be amended as “… and a drive rod to cause controllable rotation of the drive rod via …” in lines 3-4, “… of the second gear; and ” in line 7, and “… and coupled to the edge cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the edge cleaner rod and a filament ring via … ” in line s 8- 9. In claim 26, line 2, the term may be amended as “[[a]] the cleaning roller”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3, 8-17, and 22-28 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. In claims 1 and 15, lines 3-4, the term “the cleaning orifice” lacks antecedent basis. It is advised to amend the term as “the vacuum orifice”. Claims 2 , 3, and 8-14 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency from claim 1 and claims 16, 17, and 22-28 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency from claim 15 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir et al. (US 2023/0284848, hereinafter Muir) , in view of Schnittman et al. (KR 20120012833A, hereinafter Schnittman) . Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the Muir reference (02/03/2022) , the applied reference constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) . Th e s e rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) ; (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) ; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02 . Regarding claim 1, Muir discloses a cleaning head for a vacuum system (fig. 1 and ¶ 0081, a cleaning head for a vacuum cleaner is shown) , comprising: a main body including a vacuum orifice (fig. 1, a housing 102 [corresponds to the recited main body] includes a vacuum orifice) ; and a cleaning roller attached to the main body and disposed at least partially within the cleaning orifice (fig. 1 and ¶ 0088, a rotatable cleaning bar 114 [corresponds to the recited cleaning roller] is mounted in the orifice of the housing 102) , but does not disclose an edge cleaner rod disposed within the main body and behind the cleaning roller; and an edge cleaner attached to an end of the edge cleaner rod; wherein the edge cleaner is configured to agitate debris and move the debris into a path of the cleaning roller and vacuum orifice. Although Muir discloses a cleaning accessory 100 comprising rotatable cleaning brushes 140, 210 [correspond to the recited edge cleaner] on each side of the cleaning bar 1 14, used for improving edge cleaning of a floor (figs. 4a, 4b and ¶ 0095), but does not disclose the cleaning brushes are attached to the edge cleaner rod. Schnittman teaches, in an analogous vacuum cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, an edge cleaner rod disposed within the main body and behind the cleaning roller; and an edge cleaner attached to an end of the edge cleaner rod; wherein the edge cleaner is configured to agitate debris and move the debris into a path of the cleaning roller and vacuum orifice (Schnittman English translation, p. 9:20-36 and fig. 2, Schnittman discloses a vacuum cleaning comprising two roller brushes 510, 520 disposed within a main body 300 of the cleaner 100, wherein each roller brush comprises an end brush 540 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner] on each end of the roller brush. The roller brush 510 disposed behind the roller brush 520 is designated as the recited edge cleaner rod. The end brush sweeps debris present on or along an object (e.g. wall) adjacent to the robot cleaner 100 . The end brush agitates dusts and debris existing along an edge between a floor and a wall. Such dusts and debris are usually not sucked by an ordinary vacuum cleaner because an end of a cleaning roller is not disposed beyond a side surface of the cleaning head. The agitated dusts and debris on the edge would be bounced away from the wall toward the vacuum cleaner so that they would move into a path of the vacuum orifice ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir to provide the edge cleaner rod and the edge cleaner as taught by Schnittman in order to sweep debris near edge and wall during the cleaning operation (Schnittman English translation, p. 9:32-33). Regarding claim 15, Muir discloses a cleaning head for a vacuum system (fig. 1 and ¶ 0081, a cleaning head for a vacuum cleaner is shown) , comprising: a main body including a vacuum orifice (fig. 1, a housing 102 [corresponds to the recited main body] includes a vacuum orifice) ; and a cleaning roller attached to the main body and disposed at least partially within the cleaning orifice (fig. 1 and ¶ 0088, a rotatable cleaning bar 114 [corresponds to the recited cleaning roller] is mounted in the orifice of the housing 102), but does not disclose an edge cleaner rod disposed within the main body and forward of the cleaning roller; and an edge cleaner attached to an end of the edge cleaner rod; wherein the edge cleaner is configured to agitate debris and move the debris into a path of the cleaning roller and vacuum orifice. Although Muir discloses a cleaning accessory 100 comprising rotatable cleaning brushes 140, 210 [correspond to the recited edge cleaner] on each side of the cleaning bar 114, used for improving edge cleaning of a floor (figs. 4a, 4b and ¶ 0095), but does not disclose the cleaning brushes are attached to the edge cleaner rod. Schnittman teaches, in the analogous vacuum cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, an edge cleaner rod disposed within the main body and forward of the cleaning roller; and an edge cleaner attached to an end of the edge cleaner rod; wherein the edge cleaner is configured to agitate debris and move the debris into a path of the cleaning roller and vacuum orifice (Schnittman English translation, p. 9:20-36 and fig. 2, as discussed in claim 1 above, Schnittman discloses the vacuum cleaning comprising two roller brushes 510, 520 disposed within the main body 300 of the cleaner 100, wherein each roller brush comprises the end brush 540 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner] on each end of the roller brush. The roller brush 520 disposed forward of the roller brush 510 is designated as the recited edge cleaner rod. The end brush sweeps debris present on or along an object (e.g. wall) adjacent to the robot cleaner 100 . The end brush agitates dusts and debris existing along an edge between a floor and a wall . Such dusts and debris are usually not sucked by an ordinary vacuum cleaner because an end of a cleaning roller is not disposed beyond a side surface of the cleaning head . The agitated dusts and debris on the edge would be bounced away from the wall toward the vacuum cleaner so that they would move into a path of the vacuum orifice ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir to provide the edge cleaner rod and the edge cleaner as taught by Schnittman in order to sweep debris near edge and wall during the cleaning operation (Schnittman English translation, p. 9:32-33). Claims 2, 3, 8, 16, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , as applied to claims 1 and 15 above respectively, and in further view of unannounced inventor (CN 115530692A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS, hereinafter UI). Regarding claim s 2 and 16 , Muir as modified by Schnittman teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim s 1 and 15 respectively , wherein the edge cleaner in cludes a plurality of filaments that are splayed outwardly at a selected angle from the main body (Muir, fig. 1 and ¶ 0096, a plurality of flexible cleaning elements 142 projects outwards from a side wall of the housing 102. Each element projects with a fixed angle from the housing 102), but does not disclose explicitly a filament ring includes the plurality of filaments. UI teaches, in an analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a filament ring includes the plurality of filaments (UI English translation, p. 10:1-15 and fig. 9, a surface cleaner comprises a brush roller 12 and a side brush 13 is disposed on each end of the brush roller. The brush roller 12 comprises a brush base 131 [corresponds to the recited filament ring] wherein a plurality of brush hairs is disposed on it). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman to provide the filament ring as taught by UI. It makes easy to replace the side brush when the brush hairs are worn out. Regarding claim s 3 and 17 , Muir as modified by Schnittman and UI teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim s 2 and 16 respectively , wherein the plurality of filaments include a first plurality of filaments that are splayed outwardly at a selected angle from the main body and a second plurality of filaments that are splayed outwardly or co-planar with a side surface of the main body (Muir, fig. 1, there is a plurality of flexible cleaning elements 142 [correspond to the recited filaments] that are splayed outwardly at a selected angle. Each flexible cleaning element is fixed with the rotatable cleaning brush, thus it is disposed at a selected angle. As discussed in drawing objection, there is no distinction between the first filaments and the second filaments. The flexible cleaning elements of Muir can be designated as the first filaments or the second filaments, and they are splayed outwardly from a side surface of the main body). Regarding claim s 8 and 22 , Muir as modified by Schnittman teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim s 1 and 15 respectively , but does not disclose explicitly the edge cleaner is removably attached to the edge cleaner rod. UI teaches, in the analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the edge cleaner is removably attached to the edge cleaner rod (UI English translation, p. 4:8-10 and fig. 9, the side brush 13 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner] is detachably detached from a connecting block 15 and the brush roller 12. The brush roller 12, which is coupled to the side brush, can be considered as an edge cleaner rod). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman to provide the detachable edge cleaner as taught by UI. It enables replacing or repairing the edge cleaner easily. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Carter et al. (US 2017/0347848, hereinafter Carter) and UI. Regarding claim 9, Muir as modified by Schnittman teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising: a controllable motor assembly ( Muir, motor 500 ; ¶ 0085 one or more control buttons are used for actuating the motor, thus the motor is controllable ) disposed within the main body; a first belt ( Muir, belt 518) disposed within the main body and coupled to the controllable motor assembly and the cleaning roller ( Muir, rotatable cleaning bar 114) to cause controllable rotation of the cleaning roller via the controllable motor assembly; a drive rod disposed within the main body and coupled to the first belt to cause controllable rotation of the drive via the controllable motor assembly; the drive rod including a first gear ( Muir, motor gear 516) disposed thereon; a second gear ( Muir, drive gear 506) disposed within the main body and coupled to the first gear such that rotation of the drive rod and first gear cause rotation of the second gear (Muir ¶ 0129-30 and see annotated Muir fig. 5 below for the recited elements. The recited elements are disposed within the housing 102 [corresponds to the recited main body]), but does not disclose a second belt coupled to the second gear and coupled to the cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the cleaner rod via the controllable motor assembly. Carter teaches, in an analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, a second belt coupled to the second gear and coupled to the cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the cleaner rod via the controllable motor assembly (see annotated Carter fig. 14 below and ¶ 0054, a second drive belt 174 [corresponds to the recited second belt] is coupled to a leading roller 124 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner rod]. Muir teaches the second gear is disposed on the first belt side of the roller brush. Thus, the second belt of Carter would be coupled to the second gear through the roller brush, and the second drive belt 174 transfers rotation from a motor 171 to the leading roller 124). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman to provide the second belt as taught by Carter in order to transmit rotational force from the motor to a second rolling body of the cleaner. Muir as modified by Schnittman and Carter does not disclose a filament ring rotating with the edge cleaner rod . UI teaches, in the analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a filament ring rotating with the edge cleaner rod (UI English translation, p. 10:1-15 and fig. 9, a surface cleaner comprises a brush roller 12 and a side brush 13 is disposed on each end of the brush roller. The brush roller 12 comprises a brush base 131 [corresponds to the recited filament ring] which rotates with the brush roller ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman and Carter to provide the filament ring as taught by UI. It makes easy to replace the side brush when the brush hairs are worn out. Annotated Muir Fig. 5 Annotated Carter Fig. 14 Regarding claim 11 , Muir as modified by Schnittman , Carter, and UI teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 9 , wherein a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is the same as the rotation direction of the edge cleaner ( Muir as modified by Schnittman and UI does not teach the rotational directions of the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner. However, Carter teaches, in fig. 10 , a brush roll 122 [corresponds to the recited cleaning roller] and the leading roller 124 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner rod] rotate in the same direction . The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the leading roller 124 . Although cleaning roller of the instant application is disposed forward of the edge cleaner rod, the teaching of Carter is two rotating bodies of a cleaner rotate in the same direction ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Carter, and UI to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotate in the same direction as taught by Carter . The same direction rotation of the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner rod along with the edge cleaner results in scattering debris to rearward. By controlling the rotation speed, the edge cleaner would not blow the debris far away from the cleaner. Because a suction port is located at the rearward of the cleaning brush (see Carter fig. 10), it helps suctioning more debris into a suction path . However, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , Carter and UI, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Chen (US 2022/0110499). Regarding claim 10 , Muir as modified by Schnittman , Carter, and UI teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 9 , but does not disclose a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner. Chen teaches, in an analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner (fig. 3, a cleaner has two rotating rollers 51, 52 and they rotate in opposite direction to each other. The roller 51 is designated as the recited cleaning roller and the roller 52 is designated as the recited edge cleaner rod. The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the roller 52). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Carter, and UI to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotated in opposite direction as taught by Chen . It makes the rotation direction of the edge cleaner to be opposite to a travel direction of the cleaner and keeps the debris in front of the cleaning roller so that the debris are swept by the cleaning roller and collected into a suction path. As discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Li et al. (CN 115500739A, hereinafter Li ‘ 739 ), Li et al. (WO 2023088410A1, hereinafter Li ‘410), and UI. Regarding claim 12, Muir as modified by Schnittman teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 1 , further comprising a controllable motor assembly (Muir , motor 500) ; a first belt (Muir, belt 518) disposed within the main body , a drive rod including a first gear (Muir, motor gear 516) disposed thereon; a second gear (Muir, drive gear 506) disposed within the main body and coupled to the first gear such that rotation of the drive rod and first gear cause rotation of the second gear (Muir ¶ 0129-30 and see annotated Muir fig. 5 above for the recited elements. Muir teaches the recited elements are disposed within the housing 102 [corresponds to the recited main body]), but does disclose the first belt coupled to the cleaning roller and drive rod to cause controllable rotation of the drive via the controllable motor assembly; a second belt coupled to the second gear and coupled to the cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the cleaner rod via the controllable motor assembly. Li ‘739 teaches, in an analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the first belt coupled to the cleaning roller and drive rod to cause controllable rotation of the drive via the controllable motor assembly; a second belt coupled to the second gear and coupled to the cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the cleaner rod via the controllable motor assembly (see annotated Li ‘739 fig. 1, Part I below, Li ‘739 discloses a sweeper comprising two rolling brushes 5, 6. The two rotating brushes are coupled by two belts connected by a middle belt pulley 18 [corresponds to the recited drive rod]. The rotational force of motor 7 is transmitted via the two belts and the drive rod 18. Li ‘739 teaches the rotational force transmission mechanism from one rotating element to another rotating element for a cleaning apparatus). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman to provide the first belt, the second belt, and the drive rod as taught by Li. The belts and the drive rod between two rotating elements make it possible to further adjust the rotational speed transmitted to the rolling brush/edge cleaner rod. Muir as modified by Schnittman and Li ‘739 does not disclose the controllable motor assembly is disposed within the cleaning roller . Li ‘410 teaches, in an analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, the controllable motor assembly is disposed within the cleaning roller ( Li ‘410 English translation, p. 13:26-31 , a motor is placed inside a roll ing brush. Muir discloses the motor is disposed out of the cleaning roller and they are coupled by a belt . However, the teaching of Li ‘410 can be combined with Muir to place the motor in the cleaning roller and eliminates a use of belt between the motor and the cleaning roller ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman and Li ‘739 to provide the controllable motor assembly within the cleaning roller as taught by Li ‘410 in order to improve effectiveness of rotational force transmission by eliminating a use of belt from a motor. The use of belt results in less effectiveness in the rotational force transmission due to slipping as the belt wears out. Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 still does not disclose a filament ring rotating with the edge cleaner rod. UI teaches, in the analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a filament ring rotating with the edge cleaner rod (UI English translation, p. 10:1-15 and fig. 9, a surface cleaner comprises a brush roller 12 and a side brush 13 is disposed on each end of the brush roller. The brush roller 12 comprises a brush base 131 [corresponds to the recited filament ring] which rotates with the brush roller). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 to provide the filament ring as taught by UI. It makes easy to replace the side brush when the brush hairs are worn out. Annotated Li ‘739 Fig. 1 , Part I Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , Li ‘ 739 , Li ‘410 , and UI, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Chen. Regarding claim 1 3 , Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , Li ‘410 , and UI teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 12 , but does not disclose a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner. Chen teaches, in the analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner (fig. 3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above, a cleaner has two rotating rollers 51, 52 and they rotate in opposite direction to each other. The roller 51 is designated as the recited cleaning roller and the roller 52 is designated as the recited edge cleaner rod. The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the roller 52). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , Li ‘410 , and UI to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotated in opposite direction as taught by Chen. It makes the rotation direction of the edge cleaner to be opposite to a travel direction of the cleaner and keeps the debris in front of the cleaning roller so that the debris are swept by the cleaning roller and collected into a suction path. As discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , Li ‘739 , Li ‘410 , and UI, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Carter. Regarding claim 1 4 , Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , Li ‘410 , and UI teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 12 , but does not disclose a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is the same the rotation direction of the edge cleaner. Carter teaches, in the analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is the same the rotation direction of the edge cleaner (fig. 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above, a brush roll 122 [corresponds to the recited cleaning roller] and the leading roller 124 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner rod] rotate in the same direction. The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the leading roller 124 . Although cleaning roller of the instant application is disposed forward of the edge cleaner rod, the teaching of Carter is two rotating bodies of a cleaner rotate in the same direction ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , Li ‘410 , and UI to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotated in the same direction as taught by Carter. The same direction rotation of the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner rod along with the edge cleaner results in scattering debris to rearward. By controlling the rotation speed, the edge cleaner would not blow the debris far away from the cleaner. Because a suction port is located at the rearward of the cleaning brush (see Carter fig. 10), it helps suctioning more debris into a suction path. As discussed in claim 11 above, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Claim s 23 and 2 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Carter and Li ‘739 . Regarding claim 23, Muir as modified by Schnittman teaches the cleaning head in the rejection of claim 15, further comprising: a controllable motor assembly ( Muir, motor 500) disposed within a first side of the main body; a first belt ( Muir, belt 518) disposed within the first side of the main body and coupled to the controllable motor assembly and to a first end of the cleaning roller ( Muir, rotatable cleaning bar 114) to cause controllable rotation of the cleaning roller via the controllable motor assembly (Muir ¶ 0129-30 and see annotated Muir fig. 5 above for the recited elements. The recited elements are disposed within first side of the housing 102 [corresponds to the recited main body]), but does not disclose a cog disposed within a second side of the main body, a second belt disposed within the second side of the main body and coupled to the cog and a second side of the cleaning roller . Carter teaches, in the analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, a cog disposed within a second side of the main body, a second belt disposed within the second side of the main body and coupled to the cog and a second side of the cleaning roller (see annotated Carter fig. 14 above and ¶ 0054, the second drive belt 174 [corresponds to the recited second belt] is coupled to a cog and the leading roller 124 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner rod] on a second side of the main body). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman to provide the second belt as taught by Carter in order to transmit rotational force from the motor to a second rolling body of the cleaner. Muir as modified by Schnittman and Carter does not disclose a third belt disposed within the second side of the main body, the third belt coupled to the cog and to a second side of the edge cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the edge cleaner rod via the third belt, the cog and the second belt. Li ‘739 teaches, in an analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a third belt disposed within the second side of the main body, the third belt coupled to the cog and to a second side of the edge cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the edge cleaner rod via the third belt, the cog and the second belt (annotated Li ‘739 fig. 1 , Part II below and Li ‘739 English translation, p. 6:25-31, Li ‘739 discloses a sweeper comprising two rolling brushes 5, 6. The two rotating brushes are coupled by two belts connected by a middle belt pulley 18 [corresponds to the recited cog]. The rotational force of motor 7 is transmitted via the two belts and the cog 18). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman and Carter to provide the cog and the third belt as taught by Li. The addition of the cog and third belt makes it possible to further adjust the rotational speed transmitted to the rolling brush/edge cleaner rod. Annotated Li ‘739 Fig. 1 , Part II Regarding claim 2 4 , Muir as modified by Schnittman , Carter, and Li ‘739 teaches the cleaning head in the rejection of claim 23, wherein a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is the same as the rotation direction of the edge cleaner rod (Carter fig. 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above, a brush roll 122 [corresponds to the recited cleaning roller] and the leading roller 124 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner rod] rotate in the same direction. The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the leading roller 124). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman, Carter, and Li ‘739 to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotate in the same direction as taught by Carter. The same direction rotation of the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner rod along with the edge cleaner results in scattering debris to rearward. By controlling the rotation speed, the edge cleaner would not blow the debris far away from the cleaner. Because a suction port is located at the rearward of the cleaning brush (see Carter fig. 10), it helps suctioning more debris into a suction path. As discussed in claim 11 above, however, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Claim 2 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , Carter, and Li ‘739 , as applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Chen. Regarding claim 2 5 , Muir as modified by Schnittman, Carter, and Li ‘739 teaches the cleaning head in the rejection of claim 23, but does not disclose a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner. Chen teaches, in the analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner (fig. 3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above, a cleaner has two rotating rollers 51, 52 and they rotate in opposite direction to each other. The roller 51 is designated as the recited edge cleaner rod and the roller 52 is designated as the recited cleaning roller . The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the roller 5 1 ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Carter, and Li ‘739 to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotated in opposite direction as taught by Chen. It makes the rotation direction of the edge cleaner to be opposite to a travel direction of the cleaner and keeps the debris in front of the cleaning roller so that the debris are swept by the cleaning roller and collected into a suction path. As discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above, however, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman , as applied to claim 25 above, and in further view of Li ‘739 and Li ‘410 . Regarding claim 26, Muir as modified by Schnittman teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 15, further comprising: a controllable motor assembly (Muir, motor 500) ; a first belt (Muir, belt 518) disposed within the main body (Muir ¶ 0129-30 and see annotated Muir fig. 5 above for the recited elements. Muir teaches the recited elements are disposed within the housing 102 [corresponds to the recited main body]), but does not disclose the first belt coupled to the cleaning roller and to a cog to cause controllable rotation of the cog via the controllable motor assembly; and a second belt disposed within the main body and coupled to the cog and to a second side of the edge cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the edge cleaner rod via the second belt. Li ‘739 teaches, in the analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the first belt coupled to the cleaning roller and to a cog to cause controllable rotation of the cog via the controllable motor assembly; and a second belt disposed within the main body and coupled to the cog and to a second side of the edge cleaner rod to cause controllable rotation of the edge cleaner rod via the second belt (see annotated Li ‘739 fig. 1, Part I above, Li ‘739 discloses a sweeper comprising two rolling brushes 5, 6. The two rotating brushes are coupled by two belts connected by a middle belt pulley 18 [corresponds to the recited cog]. The rotational force of motor 7 is transmitted via the two belts and the cog 18. Li ‘739 teaches the rotational force transmission mechanism from one rotating element to another rotating element for a cleaning apparatus). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman to provide the first belt, the second belt, and the cog as taught by Li. The belts and the cog between two rotating elements make it possible to further adjust the rotational speed transmitted to the rolling brush/edge cleaner rod. Muir as modified by Schnittman and Li ‘739 does not disclose a controllable motor assembly disposed within a cleaning roller . Li ‘410 teaches, in an analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, the controllable motor assembly is disposed within the cleaning roller (Shen English translation, p. 4:28, a motor is placed inside a roller brush. Muir discloses the motor is disposed out of the cleaning roller and they are coupled by a belt. However, the teaching of Li ‘410 can be combined with Muir to place the motor in the cleaning roller and eliminates a use of belt between the motor and the cleaning roller). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman and Li ‘739 to provide the controllable motor assembly within the cleaning roller as taught by Li ‘410 in order to improve effectiveness of rotational force transmission by eliminating a use of belt from a motor. The use of belt results in less effectiveness in the rotational force transmission due to slipping as the belt wears out. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman, Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 , as applied to claim 26 above, and in further view of Carter. Regarding claim 27 , Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 26 , but does not disclose a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is the same as the rotation direction of the edge cleaner rod. Carter teaches, in the analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is the same the rotation direction of the edge cleaner (fig. 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above, a brush roll 122 [corresponds to the recited cleaning roller] and the leading roller 124 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner rod] rotate in the same direction. The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the leading roller 124). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotated in the same direction as taught by Carter. The same direction rotation of the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner rod along with the edge cleaner results in scattering debris to rearward. By controlling the rotation speed, the edge cleaner would not blow the debris far away from the cleaner. Because a suction port is located at the rearward of the cleaning brush (see Carter fig. 10), it helps suctioning more debris into a suction path. As discussed in claim 14 above, h owever, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Claim 2 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman, Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 , as applied to claim 26 above, and in further view of Chen. Regarding claim 2 8 , Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 26 , but does not disclose a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner. Chen teaches, in the analogous surface cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is opposite to a rotation direction of the edge cleaner (fig. 3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 3 above, a cleaner has two rotating rollers 51, 52 and they rotate in opposite direction to each other. The roller 5 2 is designated as the recited cleaning roller and the roller 5 1 is designated as the recited edge cleaner rod. The edge cleaner attached to the edge cleaner rod would rotate in the same direction as the roller 5 1 ). 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 the cleaning head of Muir as modified by Schnittman , Li ‘739 , and Li ‘410 to provide the cleaning roller and the edge cleaner to rotated in opposite direction as taught by Chen. It makes the rotation direction of the edge cleaner to be opposite to a travel direction of the cleaner and keeps the debris in front of the cleaning roller so that the debris are swept by the cleaning roller and collected into a suction path. As discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above, however, specification of the instant application describes there is no difference in a final effect of rotating the edge cleaner rod and the main roller in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Both rotations cause dirt and debris to be contained generally in the path of the main cleaning roller 220 and the vacuum orifice 222 (p. 9:30-10:10). It appears there is no particular reason to rotate them in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7402 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00a-5:00p . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Posigian can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (313) 446-6546 . 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. /S.J.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723