DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 03/23/2026, claims 1, 3, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 26 have been amended. Claims 4-7, 18-21, and 29-42 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-3, 8-17, and 22-28 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
In response to the drawing objections made in the previous non-final rejection office action dated on 12/23/2025, Applicant has amended claims. Therefore, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
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 3 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) and Yonkers (US 3978539, cited on 03/25/2026 IDS).
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). These rejections 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 vacuum 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 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 an analogous vacuum cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, an edge cleaner rod disposed within the main body; 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 robot 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).
But Muir as modified by Schnittman does not disclose the edge cleaner rod is disposed behind the vacuum orifice.
Yonkers teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the edge cleaner rod is disposed behind the vacuum orifice (fig. 1, a cleaner housing 1 comprises two brush rollers 7, 8. One brush roller 7 is disposed at near front end of the housing and the other brush roller 8 is disposed at near rear end of the housing. The brush roller 8 can be designated as the recited edge cleaner rod. Because Muir discloses the vacuum orifice at a front end of the housing and Schnittman teaches a roller brush can work as an edge cleaner rod, by combining Yonkers with Muir and Schnittman, the recited edge cleaner rod can be positioned at the rear end of the housing behind 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 as modified by Schnittman to provide the edge cleaning rod behind the vacuum orifice as taught by Yonkers so that the cleaning tools cover large area below the cleaning head for collecting more debris.
Regarding claim 3, Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the edge cleaner includes a ring member that is co-planar with a side surface of the main body (Schnittman, fig. 2, the end brush 540 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner] includes an end 512 [corresponds to the recited ring member] that is co-planar with a side surface of a 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 edge cleaner of Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers to provide the ring member as taught by Schnittman. The end 512 supports the end brush 540 so that the end brush is securely held while it makes repeated contact with a surface to be cleaned.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman and Yonkers, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of unannounced inventor (CN 115530692A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS, hereinafter UI).
Regarding claim 2, Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the edge cleaner includes 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 and Yonkers 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 8, Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 1, 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 and Yonkers to provide the detachable edge cleaner as taught by UI. It enables replacing or repairing the edge cleaner easily.
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman and Yonkers, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Carter et al. (US 2017/0347848, hereinafter Carter).
Regarding claim 9, Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising: a controllable motor assembly disposed within the main body (Muir, fig. 5, a motor 500; ¶ 0085 one or more control buttons are used for actuating the motor, thus the motor is controllable); a first belt (Muir, belt 518) disposed within the main body and configured to transfer rotational motion from the controllable motor assembly to the cleaner roller (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]. Rotational motion/force is transferred from the motor assembly 500 to the cleaner roller 114), but does not disclose a second belt configured to transfer rotational motion from the cleaning roller to the edge cleaner rod and the edge cleaner.
Carter teaches, in an analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, a second belt configured to transfer rotational motion from the cleaning roller to the edge cleaner rod and the edge cleaner (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]. The second belt of Carter is also coupled with a cleaning roller and the motor assembly, thus the second drive belt 174 transfers rotation from the cleaning roller 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 and Yonkers 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
788
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Muir Fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
856
1347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Carter Fig. 14
Regarding claim 11, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter 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 Yonkers 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, Yonkers, and Carter 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.
Regarding claim 12, Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising a drive rod (Muir, motor gear 516) coupled to the cleaning roller, the drive rod including a first gear disposed thereon (Muir ¶ 0129-30 and see annotated Muir fig. 5 above for the recited elements. The drive rod is coupled to the cleaning roller 114 through the first belt 518);
a first belt (Muir, belt 518) configured to transfer rotational motion from the controllable motor assembly to the cleaner roller (Muir ¶ 0129-30 and see annotated Muir fig. 5 above for the recited elements. Rotational motion/force is transferred from the motor assembly 500 to the cleaner roller 114), but does not disclose a second belt configured to transfer rotational motion from the cleaning roller to the edge cleaner rod and the edge cleaner.
Carter teaches, in an analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, a second belt configured to transfer rotational motion from the cleaning roller to the edge cleaner rod and the edge cleaner (see annotated Carter fig. 14 above 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]. The second belt of Carter is also coupled with a cleaning roller and the motor assembly, thus the second drive belt 174 transfers rotation from the cleaning roller 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 and Yonkers 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.
Regarding claim 14, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 12, wherein 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, Yonkers, and Carter 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.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter, as applied to claims 9 and 12 above respectively, and in further view of Chen (US 2022/0110499).
Regarding claim 10, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter 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, Yonkers, and Carter 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.
Regarding claim 13, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Cater 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, Yonkers, and Cater 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.
Claims 15 and 17 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), Yonkers (US 3978539, cited on 03/25/2026 IDS), and Carter et al. (US 2017/0347848, hereinafter Carter).
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 vacuum 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 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 an analogous vacuum cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, an edge cleaner rod disposed within the main body; 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 robot 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).
But Muir as modified by Schnittman does not disclose the edge cleaner rod is disposed rearward of the vacuum orifice.
Yonkers teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the edge cleaner rod is disposed rearward of the vacuum orifice (fig. 1, a cleaner housing 1 comprises two brush rollers 7, 8. One brush roller 7 is disposed at near front end of the housing and the other brush roller 8 is disposed at near rear end of the housing. The brush roller 8 can be designated as the recited edge cleaner rod. Because Muir discloses the vacuum orifice at a front end of the housing and Schnittman teaches a roller brush can work as an edge cleaner rod, by combining Yonkers with Muir and Schnittman, the recited edge cleaner rod can be positioned at the rear end of the housing behind 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 as modified by Schnittman to provide the edge cleaning rod behind the vacuum orifice as taught by Yonkers so that the cleaning tools cover large area below the cleaning head for collecting more debris.
Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers does not disclose the edge cleaner rod includes a plush material to clean a surface under the main body.
Carter teaches, in an analogous cleaning head field of endeavor, the edge cleaner rod includes a plush material to clean a surface under the main body (¶ 0038, a roller 124 may include a relatively soft material. Schnittman teaches a roller brush can work as the recited edge cleaner rod. By combining Carter with Schnittman, the edge cleaner rod can be made of a soft material).
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 edge cleaner rod of Muir as modified by Schnittman and Yonkers to provide the plush material as taught by Carter so that the edge cleaner rod is facilitated to capture debris on a surface (Carter ¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 17, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the edge cleaner includes a ring member that is co-planar with a side surface of the main body (Schnittman, fig. 2, the end brush 540 [corresponds to the recited edge cleaner] includes an end 512 [corresponds to the recited ring member] that is co-planar with a side surface of a 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 edge cleaner of Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter to provide the ring member as taught by Schnittman. The end 512 supports the end brush 540 so that the end brush is securely held while it makes repeated contact with a surface to be cleaned.
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of UI.
Regarding claim 16, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the edge cleaner includes 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, Yonkers, 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.
Regarding claim 22, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 15, 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, Yonkers, and Carter to provide the detachable edge cleaner as taught by UI. It enables replacing or repairing the edge cleaner easily.
Claims 23, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Li et al. (CN 115500739A, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 23, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter 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]),
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, Yonkers, and Carter 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, Yonkers, 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 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 fig. 1, Part II below and Li English translation, p. 6:25-31, Li 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.
PNG
media_image3.png
749
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Li Fig. 1, Part II
Regarding claim 24, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, Carter, and Li 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, Yonkers, Carter, and Li 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.
Regarding claim 26, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, and Carter 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 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 fig. 1, Part I above, Li 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 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, Yonkers, and Carter 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.
Regarding claim 27, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, Carter, and Li teaches the cleaning head as in the rejection of claim 26, wherein a rotation direction of the cleaning roller is the same the rotation direction of the edge cleaner (Carter 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, Yonkers, Carter, and Li 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, 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.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir in view of Schnittman, Yonkers, Carter, and Li, as applied to claims 23 and 26 above respectively, and in further view of Chen.
Regarding claim 25, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, Carter, and Li 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 51).
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, Yonkers, Carter, and Li 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.
Regarding claim 28, Muir as modified by Schnittman, Yonkers, Carter, and Li 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 13 above, a cleaner has two rotating rollers 51, 52 and they rotate in opposite direction to each other. The roller 52 is designated as the recited cleaning roller and the roller 51 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 51).
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, Yonkers, Carter, and Li 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yonkers.
Applicant argues Muir and Schnittman do not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations that the edge cleaner rod is disposed behind the vacuum orifice.
Muir discloses the cleaning roller is attached to the main body and disposed at least partially within the vacuum orifice. Although Muir does not disclose the edge cleaner rod, the main body comprises a first air inlet 112 for suctioning air at a very front side of the main body, thus any cleaning tool would be disposed behind the vacuum orifice.
Schnittman discloses the recited edge cleaner rod, but does not disclose explicitly that a vacuum orifice. However, Schnittman teaches the robot can have vacuum in addition to the roller brushes (Schnittman English translation, p. 18:28-29). If the vacuum is installed with the Schnittman’s robot, the roller brushes may be disposed behind a vacuum orifice. Because the roller brush of Schnittman is used as the recited edge cleaner rod, the edge cleaner rod can be disposed behind the vacuum orifice.
Yonkers discloses a cleaner head comprising two roller brushes 7 and 8. The roller brush 8, for example, is disposed at the rear end of the cleaner head. By combining Yonkers with Schnittman, the roller brush 8 can be used as the recited edge cleaner rod. By combining Yonkers with Muir, the vacuum orifice is located at front side of the cleaner head while the edge cleaner rod is located at the rear end of the cleaner head, thus the edge cleaner rod would be disposed behind the vacuum orifice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached 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, David Posigian can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights