DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 06 August 2026.
Claims 2, 4, and 11 are canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 21-23 are newly presented by the Applicant.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-23 are currently pending.
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(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection(s).
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claim language, "a rotary member" is interpreted to be merely an intended use of the rotary brush.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language, "which is extends" is objected to for grammatical purposes. The Examiner suggests amending the claim language to instead be, “which [[is]] extends.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ventress et al (US 20140196236), hereafter referred to as Ventress.
Regarding Claim 1, Ventress discloses the following:
A rotary brush (20) comprising:
a base member (22) having a first groove (28) that extends along a longitudinal direction of the base member (22) and ends at a first axial end surface of the base member (22),
the base member (22) being rotatable about a rotational axis; and
a first cap member (54) including:
a cap-body part (26) having a first axial end surface and a second axial end surface, which is opposite to the first axial end surface in an axial direction that is parallel to the rotational axis;
a second groove (28a) extending in the longitudinal direction across the cap-body part (26) from the first axial end surface of the cap-body part (26) to the second axial end surface of the cap- body part, the second groove (28a) being continuous with the first groove (28); and
a recessed portion (recess in 54 that accepts 11; see FIG. 1, 8), into which a rotary member (11; FIG. 1) is insertable, the recessed portion (recess in 54 that accepts 11; see FIG. 1, 8) being recessed from the first axial end surface of the cap-body part (26) toward the second axial end surface of the cap-body part (26); and
a cleaning body (24) inserted into and directly contacting both the first groove (28) and the second groove (28a);
wherein:
each of the first and second axial end surfaces extends perpendicular to the rotational axis; and
the first axial end surface of the base member (22) abuts and is bonded (via the connection between 60, 62; FIG. 8) to the second axial end surface of the cap-body part (26).
Regarding Claim 3, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 1,
wherein the recessed portion (recess in 54 that accepts 11; see FIG. 1, 8) and at least a portion of the second groove (28a) overlap each other in the axial direction (as seen in FIG. 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 1,
wherein the cleaning body (24) extends across the first groove (28) and the second groove (28a).
Regarding Claim 6, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 5, wherein:
the first groove (28) includes a portion that is bent in the axial direction; and
the second groove (28a) has a straight shape (as seen in FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 6,
wherein the second groove (28a) extends in the axial direction.
Regarding Claim 9, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 1,
wherein: the first cap member (54) further comprises a flange part (flange portion of 54 at 60; FIG. 8), which is extends radially from the first axial end surface of the cap-body part (26); and
a first end portion of the cleaning body (24) contacts the flange part (flange portion of 54 at 60; FIG. 8) .
Regarding Claim 10, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 9,
wherein: the first cap member (54) further comprises a protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]), which protrudes from the second axial end surface of the cap-body part (26) in the axial direction; and
the protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]) is inserted into an opening (62), which is defined in the first axial end surface of the base member (22).
Regarding Claim 12, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 10,
wherein the first cap member (54) further comprises a projection part (flange of 54 just to the right of 60; FIG. 8), which opposes at least a portion of an outer surface of the base member (22) in the state in which the protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]) has been inserted into the opening (62).
Regarding Claim 13, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 12,
wherein the projection part (flange of 54 just to the right of 60; FIG. 8) extends more radially outward (as seen in FIG. 8) than the protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]) and protrudes from the second axial end surface of the cap-body part (26) toward the base member (22).
Regarding Claim 14, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 13,
wherein: the base member (22) comprises a base-body part, which has the opening (62), and a plurality of rib parts (ribs on either side of 24; as seen in FIG. 3), which protrude radially outward from an outer surface of the base-body part;
the rib parts (ribs on either side of 24; as seen in FIG. 3) are spaced apart in a circumferential direction; and
the projection part (flange of 54 just to the right of 60; FIG. 8) is disposed between (the flange portion extends between the ribs, as seen in FIG. 3) two of the rib parts (ribs on either side of 24; as seen in FIG. 3) that are adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction.
Regarding Claim 19, Ventress discloses the following:
A nozzle (1; FIG. 1) comprising:
a main body (2), which has a lower surface configured to oppose a surface to be cleaned;
the rotary brush (20) according to claim 1, which is supported on the main body in a rotatable manner; and
a motor (10) configured to generate a rotational force for rotating the rotary brush (20).
Regarding Claim 20, Ventress discloses the following:
A cleaner comprising:
the nozzle (1; FIG. 1) according to claim 19; and
a suction fan (vacuum cleaners inherently comprise a suction fan, see [0002]) in fluid communication with the nozzle (1; FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 1,
wherein the first axial end surface of the base member (22) and the axial second end surface of the cap-body part (26) are bonded (via the connection between 60, 62; FIG. 8) to each other with a bonding agent (connection between 60, 62; FIG. 8).
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.
Claims 8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ventress et al (US 20140196236), hereafter referred to as Ventress.
Regarding Claim 8, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 5,
Ventress does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the width of the second groove is larger than the width of the first groove.
However the Examiner notes the following:
Ventress discloses a rotary brush with a cap having first and second grooves, but is silent on the specific dimensions of the grooves. In other words, Ventress discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the width of the second groove is larger than the width of the first groove; provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any grooves could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Ventress would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relative groove widths, as disclosed by Ventress, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically providing the dimensions of the grooves for the rotary brush. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Regarding Claim 16, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 3,
wherein: the cleaning body (24) extends across the first groove (28) and the second groove (28a);
the first groove (28) includes a portion that is curved in the axial direction;
the second groove (28a) has a straight shape extending in the axial direction;
Ventress does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the width of the second groove is larger than the width of the first groove.
However the Examiner notes the following:
Ventress discloses a rotary brush with a cap having first and second grooves, but is silent on the specific dimensions of the grooves. In other words, Ventress discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the width of the second groove is larger than the width of the first groove; provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any grooves could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Ventress would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relative groove widths, as disclosed by Ventress, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically providing the dimensions of the grooves for the rotary brush. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Regarding Claim 17, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 16,
wherein: the first cap member (54) further comprises a flange part (flange portion of 54 at 60; FIG. 8), which is extends radially from the first axial end surface of the cap-body part (26);
a first end portion of the cleaning body (24) contacts the flange part (flange portion of 54 at 60; FIG. 8) ;
the first cap member (54) comprises a protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]), which protrudes from the second axial end surface of the cap-body part (26) in the axial direction; and
the protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]) is inserted into an opening (62), which is defined in the first axial end surface of the base member (22).
Claims 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ventress, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hong et al (US 20230180981), hereafter referred to as Hong.
Regarding Claim 15, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 1,
wherein, within a plane orthogonal to the rotational axis, the shape of an inner surface of the recessed portion (recess in 54 that accepts 11; see FIG. 1, 8) is hexagonal, and the shape of an outer surface of the rotary member (11; FIG. 1) is hexagonal.
Ventress does not teach the following:
wherein, within a plane orthogonal to the rotational axis, the shape of an inner surface of the recessed portion is hexagonal, and the shape of an outer surface of the rotary member is hexagonal.
However the embodiment depicted in FIG. 8 of Hong discloses the following:
wherein, within a plane orthogonal to the rotational axis, the shape of an inner surface of the recessed portion is hexagonal, and the shape of an outer surface of the rotary member is hexagonal (see FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the helix shaped recessed portion and outer surface of the rotary member, as disclosed by Ventress, with the hexagonal shaped recessed portion and outer surface of the rotary member, as disclosed by Hong, with the reasonable expectation of providing a known shape of a recessed portion and rotary member. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the helix shape, as taught by Ventress, with the hexagonal shape, as taught by Hong, yields the predictable result of providing a known rotary member and recessed portion shape (i.e. substituting one shape for another known shape). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 18, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 17,
wherein: the first cap member (54) further comprises a projection part (flange of 54 just to the right of 60; FIG. 8), which opposes at least a portion of an outer surface of the base member (22) in the state in which the protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]) has been inserted into the opening (62);
the projection part (flange of 54 just to the right of 60; FIG. 8) extends more radially outward than the protruding part (60; FIG. 8; [0038]) and protrudes from the second axial end surface of the cap-body part (26) toward the base member (22);
the base member (22) comprises a base-body part, which has the opening (62), and a plurality of rib parts (ribs on either side of 24; as seen in FIG. 3), which protrude radially outward from an outer surface of the base-body part;
the rib parts (ribs on either side of 24; as seen in FIG. 3) are spaced apart in a circumferential direction;
the projection part (flange of 54 just to the right of 60; FIG. 8) is disposed between two of the rib parts (ribs on either side of 24; as seen in FIG. 3) that are adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction; and
within a plane orthogonal to the rotational axis, the shape of an inner surface of the recessed portion (recess in 54 that accepts 11; see FIG. 1, 8) is helix shaped, and the shape of an outer surface of the rotary member (11; FIG. 1) is helix shaped.
Ventress does not teach the following:
wherein, within a plane orthogonal to the rotational axis, the shape of an inner surface of the recessed portion is hexagonal, and the shape of an outer surface of the rotary member is hexagonal.
However the embodiment depicted in FIG. 8 of Hong discloses the following:
wherein, within a plane orthogonal to the rotational axis, the shape of an inner surface of the recessed portion is hexagonal, and the shape of an outer surface of the rotary member is hexagonal (see FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the helix shaped recessed portion and outer surface of the rotary member, as disclosed by Ventress, with the hexagonal shaped recessed portion and outer surface of the rotary member, as disclosed by Hong, with the reasonable expectation of providing a known shape of a recessed portion and rotary member. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the helix shape, as taught by Ventress, with the hexagonal shape, as taught by Hong, yields the predictable result of providing a known rotary member and recessed portion shape (i.e. substituting one shape for another known shape). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ventress, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Muir (US 20210113039), hereafter referred to as Muir.
Regarding Claim 22, Ventress discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 1,
wherein the base member (22) is made of a polymer and the first cap member (54) is made of a polymer.
Ventress does not teach the following:
wherein the base member is made of metal;
However Muir discloses the following:
it is well known in the art to make the base member for a rotary brush out of either a composite or metal material (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polymer base member material, as disclosed by Ventress, with the metal base member material, as disclosed by Muir, with the reasonable expectation of providing a known material for the base member of a rotary brush. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the polymer material, as taught by Ventress, with the metal material, as taught by Muir, yields the predictable result of providing a known base member material (i.e. substituting one known material for another known material). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner further notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Muir discloses the aforementioned materials are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of rotary brushes (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ventress and Hong, as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Muir (US 20210113039), hereafter referred to as Muir.
Regarding Claim 23, Ventress as modified by Hong discloses the following:
The rotary brush (20) according to claim 18,
Ventress continues to teach the following:
wherein the base member (22) is made of a polymer and the first cap member (54) is made of a polymer.
Ventress as modified by Hong does not teach the following:
wherein the base member is made of metal;
However Muir discloses the following:
it is well known in the art to make the base member for a rotary brush out of either a composite or metal material (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polymer base member material, as disclosed by Ventress, with the metal base member material, as disclosed by Muir, with the reasonable expectation of providing a known material for the base member of a rotary brush. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the polymer material, as taught by Ventress, with the metal material, as taught by Muir, yields the predictable result of providing a known base member material (i.e. substituting one known material for another known material). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner further notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Muir discloses the aforementioned materials are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of rotary brushes (see MPEP 2144.07).
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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights