DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cross-sectional polygonal shape (optional shape of claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 911-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strutt et al. (2019/0008349).
Regarding claim 1, Strutt discloses a cleaning device comprising: a suction device (motor-driven fan, not shown, disclosed in paragraph 64) configured to suck in a pollutant from a surface to be cleaned; and a main body (8) configured to collect the pollutant sucked in through the suction device, wherein the suction device includes: a rotatable drum (24) rotatable around an axis and having a hollow portion, a driving motor (34) disposed in the hollow portion of the rotatable drum and configured to apply a rotational force to the rotatable drum to rotate the rotatable drum around the axis, a rotatable chamber (within sleeves 116 and 118) surrounding the driving motor and disposed between the rotatable drum and the driving motor, the rotatable chamber rotatable coaxially with the axis, and a cooling fluid discharge hole (132 in Fig. 10) at a first end of the rotatable chamber to discharge the cooling fluid to an outside of the rotatable chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Strutt further discloses a cooling fluid passage (90) extending from a second end of the rotatable chamber opposite the first end of the rotatable chamber to the cooling fluid discharge hole so that the cooling fluid moves from the second end of the rotatable chamber to the first end of the rotatable chamber when a suction force is applied to the suction device.
Regarding claim 3, Strutt further discloses that the driving motor includes an outer surface, the rotatable chamber includes an inner surface, and the rotatable chamber is spaced apart from the driving motor so as to form a heat dissipation portion (gap 128 in Fig. 7) between the outer surface of the driving motor and the inner surface of the rotatable chamber through which the cooling fluid moves.
Regarding claim 4, Strutt further discloses that the cooling fluid is air.
Regarding claim 5, Strutt further discloses that a cross section of the rotatable chamber in a plane perpendicular to a direction the axis extends, has a circular shape (seen in Figs. 6-8), and the cooling fluid discharge hole includes a plurality of cooling fluid discharge holes (132) spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance (any distance reads on a predetermined distance) in a circumferential direction of the circular shape (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Strutt further discloses a cross section of the rotatable chamber in a plane perpendicular to a direction the axis extends, has a circular shape (Figs. 6-8), and the cooling fluid discharge hole is spaced apart from a central portion of the circular shape by a first distance in a radial direction of the circular shape.
Regarding claim 9, Strutt further discloses a cross section of the rotatable chamber in a plane perpendicular to a direction the axis extends, has a circular shape (Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 11, Strutt further discloses the driving motor and the rotatable chamber are configured to be sequentially inserted into the hollow portion of the rotatable drum (process of assembly is considered to be a product-by-process limitation, wherein the structure of Strutt would be equivalent to the structure disclosed, regardless of what order the parts are inserted, or whether the parts are inserted simultaneously), the driving motor is configured to transmit the rotational force to the rotatable chamber, and the rotatable chamber is configured to transmit the rotational force to the rotatable drum.
Regarding claim 12, Strutt further discloses a cooling fluid inlet portion (108) at an end of the rotatable drum through which the cooling fluid is introduced into the rotatable drum when a suction force is applied to the suction device.
Regarding claim 13, Strutt further discloses a cooling fluid outlet (132) portion at an end of the rotatable drum to discharge the cooling fluid to an outside of the rotatable drum when a suction force is applied to the suction device
Regarding claim 15, Strutt further discloses a brush extending a predetermined length from an outer circumferential surface of the rotatable drum (paragraph 65).
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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutt et al. (2019/0008349).
Regarding claim 6, although Strutt fails to disclose specific size of the cooling fluid discharge holes (132) or specific spacing, it would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art, as a basic engineering principle, that the size of apertures through which air will flow will be result effective to the resulting airflow (i.e. smaller holes may reduce overall airflow, while larger will increase airflow therethrough). Further, MPEP 2144.04, section IV-A, states 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”
Therefore, the specific range of sizes for the discharge holes would be obvious over the prior art based on MPEP 2144.04, with the discharge holes of Strutt providing the same function as the discharge holes of the current application, and further obvious to vary the size to vary the resulting airflow therethrough and to vary the size depending on the overall scale of the cleaner of Strutt as a whole. Further, regarding the spacing of the discharge holes, Strutt shows two holes adjacent to one another (approximately within the claimed spacing of 10+ degrees), with additional adjacent holes being spaced substantially further, and clearly falling within the range of 10-180 degrees.
Regarding claim 8, although Strutt fails to disclose the specific spacing of the discharge hole from the central portion of the circular cross-sectional shape, again MPEP 2144.04 makes obvious variation of size, wherein the spacing of the holes (132) from a central portion would obviously vary depending on the overall diameter of the rotatable drum and cleaner as a whole. Further, the term “central portion” is not limited to the absolute center of the circular shape, wherein any portion extending from the center may be considered a central portion, including any portion spaced between 5-25mm from the discharge holes, such that the structure disclosed by Strutt may be considered to read on the claimed range based on the broad definition of the term “central portion”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutt et al. (2019/0008349), as applied to claim 1 and in view of Gordon et al. (2017/0000305).
Regarding claim 10, Strutt fails to disclose any specific speed that the drum is configured to rotate. However, it is very well known in the art that cleaning brush drums may rotate at a range of different speeds, depending on application, and Gordon discloses a similar suction cleaner with a brush drum, and teaches that the motor for the drum is preferably capable of speeds between 1000-5000 RPM, of 2000-4000 RPM (paragraph 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the motor and drum of Strutt to rotate at similar speeds, being known in the art to be desirable for similar cleaning functions. Note: the limitation that the drum is configured to rotate at the claimed speeds is not understood to require any specific structure for the drum, but would be more dependent on the motor. Thus, the claim is being interpreted to claim that the drum and motor are configured to rotate at the claimed speeds.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutt et al. (2019/0008349), as applied to claim 1 and in view of Syverson et al. (6,848,147).
Regarding claim 14, Strutt fails to disclose a PCB board within a chamber of the drum. Syverson discloses a similar internally driven brush drum for a cleaning device, and teaches that a PCB may optionally be provided with the motor inside the interior of the drum (Col. 6, lines 12-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide a PCB for controlling the drum motor of Strutt, within the internal chamber of the drum to allow the cooling air to also cool the PCB, wherein the two options would be within portions of the drum that are either upstream or downstream of the motor, such that the upstream option would provide the PCB within a chamber surrounding the PCB and disposed between the rotatable drum and the PCB, with the PCB chamber being rotatable coaxially with the axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 31 January 2026