Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 7, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Suzuki (JP 2014176503 A) in view of FOR1 (KR 100437106 B1) and Ohm (US 20230036749 A1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recited the limitation “wherein the brush is made of a material having a coefficient of friction between the brush and the at least one of the rotating body and the fixing body that is in contact with the brush, is lower than a coefficient of friction between the rotating body and the fixing body.” This is unclear, as a “gap portion” is defined in the same claim as being defined to be between the rotating body and the fixing body, as such there is no contact between the rotating body and the fixing body meaning there is no friction between the two bodies. It is unclear how this claim is meant to be interpreted, initially it seems the claim is requiring the coefficient of friction of the brush to be lower than what the coefficient of friction would be between the fixing body and the rotating body if they were in contact, but the claims and specification are silent as to the material the rotating body and fixing body are comprised of nor the manner of contact between the two if they were in contact. As the limitation begins “wherein the brush is made of a material having” the limitation seems primarily concerned with defining the material of the brush, with the remainder of the limitation being the definition of the material. When looking to applicants’ disclosure both Carbon Fiber and Teflon materials are disclosed as materials that the brush may include, with claim 14 requiring the brush be made of Carbon Fiber, but Teflon specifically is listed as an example of a material that meets the definition of “having a coefficient of friction between the brush and the at least one of the rotating body and the fixing body that is in contact with the brush, is lower than a coefficient of friction between the rotating body and the fixing body.” See Specification Para [000116]. As such for the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “Wherein the brush includes polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (i.e., Teflon).” As Teflon is included as an example material that would meet the limitation.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependency on Claim 1. And Claim 16 is rejected and interpreted in the same way as Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2014176503 A) in view of FOR1 (KR 100437106 B1) and Ohm (US 20230036749 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses: A dust separation device, comprising:
an air inlet (36);
a dust collection chamber (52) to collect dust in air flowing in from the air inlet;
a rotating body (37 and 41) rotatable inside the dust collection chamber (See Para [0045] “The rotation support portion 41 supports the first filtration filter portion 37 and the isolation portion 38 so as to be rotatable about the center line C of the container body 35 as the rotation axis.”), and including a blocking member (38) formed to block the dust from the air flowing in from the air inlet (38 is a separation unit);
a sealing member (81) configured to seal at least a portion of a gap portion formed to prevent dust from entering the gap portion (See Para [0051] “a seal section 81 is provided in the adjacent part between the lid wall 42 and the first filtration filter section 37 to prevent air from flowing from the separation chamber 51 side into the inner space of the first filtration filter section 37.”), the sealing member including a brush in contact with at least one of the rotating body and the fixing body (See Para [0053] “The sealing portion 81 includes a sealing surface 82 provided on the non-rotating portion, and brush bristles 83 provided on the first filtration filter portion 37 and in contact with the sealing surface 82 .”).
But does not explicitly disclose
a motor to rotate the rotating body;
a fixing body arranged to be spaced apart from the rotating body, and supporting the motor; and
the gap portion formed between the rotating body and the fixing body
wherein the brush is made of a material having a coefficient of friction between the brush and the at least one of the rotating body and the fixing body that is in contact with the brush, is lower than a coefficient of friction between the rotating body and the fixing body.
Although Suzuki does disclose that that the rotation of the rotating body is generated via the air flow from the cleaner (See Para [0049] “The first filtration filter section 37 and the isolation section 38 are rotatably supported by the rotation support section 41, and therefore rotate when subjected to the air flow swirling in the separation chamber 51, that is, the swirling flow F.”)
However, FOR1 discloses a similar rotating cleaner body utilizing
a motor (52a) to rotate the rotating body (See Para [62] “As shown, the grill rotation means (50) of the present embodiment is configured and operates in the same manner as the previously described case, except that it uses a motor (52A) that rotates when the vacuum cleaner is used instead of the turbine fan described above as a driving source.”);
a fixing body (12b) arranged to be spaced apart from the rotating body, and supporting the motor (See Figures 3 and 6, showing the fixing body supporting the motor and separate from rotating body 60);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the cleaning body of Suzuki to incorporate a motor and fixing body to support said motor into the wall 42 of Suzuki, as FOR1 discloses that a motor (52a) is a known equivalent in the art for providing rotation for a rotating body in a debris separator (See Para [62] cited above) than allowing the airflow to provide the rotating force (52 of FOR1 is an air turbine utilizing the airflow of the cleaner to provide rotational force, See Para [50] “As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the grill rotation means (50) comprises a rotating member (51) that rotatably supports the grill (30) relative to the cyclone body (10) and rotates together with the grill (30), a turbine fan (52) as a driving source that provides power to drive the rotating member (51) to rotate, and a power transmission means (53) that transmits the power of the turbine fan (52) to the rotating member (51).”). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Examiner also notes that modifying Suzuki in view of FOR1 would result in the gap portion being between the rotating body (37 and 41) and the fixing member (12b of FOR1 incorporated into the wall 42 of Suzuki).
And Ohm discloses a plurality of materials for bristles for a brush for a cleaner including Polytetrafluoroethylene [Teflon] (See Para [0053] “The bristles can be made of one or more of polymer, metal, or the like. For example, the bristles can be made of Polytetrafluoroethylene or nylon. Use of soft and flexible bristles can help to reduce noise of operation, such as over textured floors (e.g., tile), while helping to reduce cost over other supports, such as casters.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the brush of the cleaner to be made up of Teflon bristles, as Ohm discloses doing so would reduce operational noise.
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses Wherein the gap portion includes a gap inlet through which the air is introduced into the gap portion, and wherein the sealing member is configured to seal a gap inlet (See Para [0051] “Therefore, the seal portion 81 prevents air from passing through the minute gap between the first filtration filter portion 37 and the cover wall 42 or prevents dust from entering, thereby ensuring reliable rotation of the first filtration filter portion 37.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition wherein the blocking member (38) is along an outer circumference of the rotating body (See Fig. 2), and the rotating body further includes a rotating case (53) supporting the blocking member (See Para [0089] “Furthermore, in the electric vacuum cleaner 1 according to this embodiment, the isolation section 38 rotates together with the first filtration filter section 37, so that the dust in the dust collection chamber 52 can be stirred not only by the swirling flow F but also by the isolation section 38, thereby homogenizing the distribution density of dust in the dust collection chamber 52, eliminating uneven distribution of dust, and allowing more dust to accumulate.”).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and in addition discloses wherein the rotating case (53) includes a rotating wall (The wall underneath 39 is a rotating wall) disposed between the blocking member and the fixing body (See Figure 2 of Suzuki), and the sealing member is configured to seal the gap portion formed between the rotating wall and the fixing body (Sealing body 81 prevents debris from entering between 53 and the fixing body).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses
wherein the fixing body (12b of FOR1 part of wall 42 of Suzuki) includes a guide portion (82) configured to guide the rotation of the rotating body (82 forms a rotation track between it and shaft wall 71),
the rotating body (37 and 41) includes a slide portion (top portion of 53) configured to rotate along the guide portion (rotating body rotates in the track provided by guide portion), and
the gap portion is formed between the guide portion and the slide portion (See Figure 1 showing gap portion between 82 and top of 53).
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses wherein the guide portion and the slide portion are formed in a ring shape, and the sealing member is formed in a ring shape along the guide portion and the slide portion (See Para [0093] “Furthermore, since the vacuum cleaner 1 according to this embodiment is provided with brush bristles 83, 83A that extend radially in the normal direction of the first filtration filter section 37, productivity of the sealing sections 81, 81A can be increased by forming a sheet-like material with the implanted brush bristles 83, 83A into a strip shape and rolling the long sides into a circular shape.” Further, Fig. 2 is a cross-sectional view of a circular/cylindrical/ring shaped body).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses
wherein the guide portion (82) includes a guide groove (space between 81 and 53) formed to accommodate at least a portion of the slide portion,
the slide portion (top portion of 53) is configured to rotate along the guide groove, and
the sealing member (81) is in the guide groove (See Fig. 2).
But does not explicitly disclose the guide groove is concave.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the guide groove to be a concave shape as doing so would be a simple change in shape, which has been held to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed piece is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the sealing member (81) further includes a base supporting the brush (See surface brush hairs 83 sit on as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the base is located on the fixing body.
However, Suzuki discloses in Para [0053] “In addition, the positional relationship between the sealing surface 82 and the brush bristles 83 may be reversed; that is, the sealing section 81 may have a sealing surface 82 provided on either the first filtration filter section 37 or the non-rotating section, and brush bristles 83 provided on the other of the first filtration filter section 37 or the non-rotating section and in contact with the sealing surface 82.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the brush base to be located on the fixing body (82 extends from 42, which the fixing body is a part of) as doing so is suggested via Para [0053] of Suzuki and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, which has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the blocking member (38) includes a grille (57) in which a plurality of holes is formed (See Fig. 2).
However, FOR1 discloses a similar blocking member 30 which is a grill in which a plurality of holes are formed (See Para [26] “This grill (30) has a grill body (31) and a plurality of channels (32) arranged on the outer surface of the grill body (31) to communicate with the air exhaust pipe (12).”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the blocking member to include a grill as doing so would prevent dust and debris separated from flowing back through the discharge pipe as advantageously suggested in Para [26] of FOR1 “The above grill (30) is installed at the inlet of the air discharge pipe (12) inside the cyclone body (10) and prevents dust and dirt separated from the swirling air current from flowing back through the air discharge pipe (12).”
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 wherein the brush is arranged in a direction parallel to a rotation axis direction of the rotating body (See Figure 2 of Suzuki, the base the brushes are placed on extends downward in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of direction of the rotating body).
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses further comprising a filter (45) disposed on a downstream side of the blocking member on an air flow path through which the air flows from the air inlet (See Figure 2 showing the filter disposed downstream of the blocking member and air inlet and before air outlet 85).
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 12, and in addition discloses wherein the filter is mounted to the fixing body (See Figure 2 of Suzuki, 45 sits on wall 42 which the fixing body is a part of as modified in claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Suzuki discloses
A cleaner (1), comprising:
a main body (2) including an intake port (19), an exhaust port (See Para [0032] “The electric blower 8 exhausts the air sucked from the dust separating and collecting device 7 to the outside of the vacuum cleaner body 2.”), and a suction motor (8);
and a dust separation device (7) disposed in the main body, the dust separation device including:
an air inlet (36);
a dust collection chamber (52) to collect dust in air flowing in from the air inlet;
a rotating body (37 and 41) rotatable inside the dust collection chamber (See Para [0045] “The rotation support portion 41 supports the first filtration filter portion 37 and the isolation portion 38 so as to be rotatable about the center line C of the container body 35 as the rotation axis.”), and including a blocking member (38) formed to block the dust from the air flowing in from the air inlet (38 is a separation unit), and including a blocking member (38) formed to block the dust from the air flowing in from the air inlet (38 is a separation unit)
a sealing member configured to seal at least a portion of a gap portion formed between the rotating body and the fixing body to prevent dust from entering the gap portion, the sealing member including a brush in contact with at least one of the rotating body and the fixing body.
a sealing member (81) configured to seal at least a portion of a gap portion formed to prevent dust from entering the gap portion (See Para [0051] “a seal section 81 is provided in the adjacent part between the lid wall 42 and the first filtration filter section 37 to prevent air from flowing from the separation chamber 51 side into the inner space of the first filtration filter section 37.”), the sealing member including a brush in contact with at least one of the rotating body and the fixing body (See Para [0053] “The sealing portion 81 includes a sealing surface 82 provided on the non-rotating portion, and brush bristles 83 provided on the first filtration filter portion 37 and in contact with the sealing surface 82 .”).
But does not explicitly disclose
a motor to rotate the rotating body;
a fixing body arranged to be spaced apart from the rotating body, and supporting the motor; and
the gap portion formed between the rotating body and the fixing body
wherein the brush is made of a material having a coefficient of friction between the brush and the at least one of the rotating body and the fixing body that is in contact with the brush, is lower than a coefficient of friction between the rotating body and the fixing body.
Although Suzuki does disclose that that the rotation of the rotating body is generated via the air flow from the cleaner (See Para [0049] “The first filtration filter section 37 and the isolation section 38 are rotatably supported by the rotation support section 41, and therefore rotate when subjected to the air flow swirling in the separation chamber 51, that is, the swirling flow F.”)
However, FOR1 discloses a similar rotating cleaner body utilizing
a motor (52a) to rotate the rotating body (See Para [62] “As shown, the grill rotation means (50) of the present embodiment is configured and operates in the same manner as the previously described case, except that it uses a motor (52A) that rotates when the vacuum cleaner is used instead of the turbine fan described above as a driving source.”);
a fixing body (12b) arranged to be spaced apart from the rotating body, and supporting the motor (See Figures 3 and 6, showing the fixing body supporting the motor and separate from rotating body 60);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the cleaning body of Suzuki to incorporate a motor and fixing body to support said motor into the wall 42 of Suzuki, as FOR1 discloses that a motor (52a) is a known equivalent in the art for providing rotation for a rotating body in a debris separator (See Para [62] cited above) than allowing the airflow to provide the rotating force (52 of FOR1 is an air turbine utilizing the airflow of the cleaner to provide rotational force, See Para [50] “As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the grill rotation means (50) comprises a rotating member (51) that rotatably supports the grill (30) relative to the cyclone body (10) and rotates together with the grill (30), a turbine fan (52) as a driving source that provides power to drive the rotating member (51) to rotate, and a power transmission means (53) that transmits the power of the turbine fan (52) to the rotating member (51).”). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Examiner also notes that modifying Suzuki in view of FOR1 would result in the gap portion being between the rotating body (37 and 41) and the fixing member (12b of FOR1 incorporated into the wall 42 of Suzuki).
And Ohm discloses a plurality of materials for bristles for a brush for a cleaner including Polytetrafluoroethylene [Teflon] (See Para [0053] “The bristles can be made of one or more of polymer, metal, or the like. For example, the bristles can be made of Polytetrafluoroethylene or nylon. Use of soft and flexible bristles can help to reduce noise of operation, such as over textured floors (e.g., tile), while helping to reduce cost over other supports, such as casters.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the brush of the cleaner to be made up of Teflon bristles, as Ohm discloses doing so would reduce operational noise.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2014176503 A) in view of FOR1 (KR 100437106 B1) and Ohm (US 20230036749 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Genn (US 20170079493 A1) and Ventress (US 20150223654 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the material of the brush includes a carbon fiber material.
However, Genn discloses a cleaner with a brush (14) comprised of bristles made of multiple materials (See Para [0029] “The brushbar 14 comprises bristles 16, 17 that are arranged in strips which extend about the brushbar 14. The bristles 16, 17 project radially outwardly from the brushbar 14 and comprise a first strip of Nylon bristles 16 and a second strip of carbon fibre bristles 17.”).
And additionally, Ventress discloses a cleaner nozzle component with a pad (68) arranged to have a lower coefficient of friction than the nozzle (51), wherein the pad has a low friction Teflon coating (See Para [0067] “However, the pads 68 might equally be formed of a different material that is softer and has a lower coefficient of friction than that of the nozzle 51. By way of example only, the pads 68 may be formed of a felted fabric, an elastomeric foam perhaps having a low-friction coating such as PTFE, or a strip of very short and fine bristles.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to choose Teflon coated carbon fiber as a material for the brush as carbon fiber is a known material to form bristles from, as taught by Genn in Para [0029] as cited above and Teflon coating is known to give a low coefficient of friction (See Para [0067] of Ventress, specifically “First, the pads 68 have a lower coefficient of friction than that of the nozzle 51 and thus the tool 60 may be swept over the cleaning surface 40 more smoothly and with less effort.”).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2014176503 A) in view of FOR1 (KR 100437106 B1) and Ohm (US 20230036749 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Smith (US 20130091655 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the dust collection chamber includes a scattering preventing rib formed to prevent dust collected in the dust collection chamber from scattering.
However, Nam discloses a similar dust separation device wherein the dust collection chamber (502) including a scattering preventing rib (521) formed to prevent dust collected in the dust collection chamber from scattering (See Para [0067] “The body cover 520 may include a rib 521 for preventing the dust in the first dust storage part 502 from being rotated by cyclonic flow. The rib 521 may extend upward from the body cover 520.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the dust collection chamber to include a rib as advantageously described by Nam in Para [0067] as cited above as doing so would prevent dust and debris from being rotated by the flow of air in the chamber.
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights