DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2 March 2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species G, represented by Fig. 13, is so similar that it should be examined along with species E. This is found persuasive because both species focus primarily on the vane forming a loop and the differences between species E and F would be considered to be obvious variants of one another.
The applicant has also indicated that claim 5 has been withdrawn, assumed to be directed to non-elected species A, including Fig. 5, which shows the extending portion. Additionally, claim 3 also recites the extending portion and would be withdrawn along with claim 5. However, as currently pending, the limitations of claims 3 and 5 are both found to be obvious variants of the elected embodiment, as discussed in the prior art rejections below, and are hereby examined with the elected embodiment.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 secondary cleaning member being positioned at least 90 degrees from the vane (claim 10; shown in Fig. 11 to be less than 90 degrees) and the loop extending along the longitudinal axis (claim 17; clearly shown offset from the axis) 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted above, the drawings show the secondary cleaning member to be spaced less than 90 degrees from the vane (vane and secondary cleaning member are shown centered at 90 degrees relative to one another, but both extend in the circumferential direction such that the overall structures are positioned less than 90 degrees from one another), and there is no written support for the limitation of claim 10 in the original application. Therefore, the limitation of claim 10 is considered to be new matter.
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 17 is 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. The limitation that the loop extends along the longitudinal axis of the brushroll suggests that the loop is coaxial with the axis. However, the drawings clearly show the vane positioned on an outer periphery of the brushroll, which is offset and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the brushroll, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 26 February 2024 has been considered by the examiner. However, the examiner notes that the IDS documents include an extensive number of references, many/most of which have little to no relevance to the specifics of the claimed invention of the current application. Although the examiner has reviewed the applicant’s submitted references, the examiner does request that the applicant submit additional disclosure of any particularly relevant references to the current claimed invention for more focused review by the examiner.
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 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermillion (4,372,004; to be referred to hereinafter as VM).
Regarding claim 1, VM discloses a brushroll, intended for use in a cleaning head for a floor cleaner (Col. 2, lines 50-52) comprising: a housing; a brushroll chamber having an opening in a bottom side of the housing. Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a commonly known cleaner head having a brushroll chamber and opening in the bottom for the brushroll of VM operably mounted in the brushroll chamber with an agitating member extending through the opening (nearly universal for floor cleaners with brushrolls. VM discloses that the brushroll assembly having an agitator body extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end, and configured to contact a surface to be cleaned, wherein the agitating member includes a vane (28) extending longitudinally along the agitator body and connected to the agitator body along a first vane edge and a second vane edge such that the vane forms a loop extending outwardly from the agitator body.
Regarding claim 2, although VM fails to disclose any specific dimensions for the spacing between the edges of the vane, it is obvious to vary the size of prior art to adapt to different applications and/or optimize performance, wherein the spacing between the edges of the vane of VM would obviously vary the size of the loop formed by the vane and will also vary the spacing to the bristles provided thereon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the size of the vane and spacing between the edges of the vane, to adapt and optimize the vane, to the extent that a spacing of at least 4mm between the edges would have been obvious (see MPEP 2144.04, section IV-A).
Regarding claim 4, VM further discloses a first coupler (shoulder 40) connected to the first vane edge and a second coupler (40) connected to the second vane edge, the first coupler connected to the agitator body adjacent the second coupler such that the vane forms the loop extending outwardly from the agitator body.
Regarding claim 6, VM further discloses that the vane includes a plurality of apertures (32) extending longitudinally along the vane in a direction from the fist end of the agitator body toward the second end of the agitator body.
Regarding claim 7, VM further discloses a row of bristles (34) extending from the agitator body, through the corresponding plurality of apertures aligned therewith and configured to contact the surface to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 11, VM further discloses that the vane is a first vane and wherein the agitating member further includes a second vane extending longitudinally along the agitator body and connected to the agitator body along a first vane edge and a second vane edge such that the second vane forms a second loop extending outwardly from the agitator body.
Regarding claim 12, VM further discloses that the brushroll assembly rotates relative to the housing about a longitudinal axis that extends through the first end and the second end of the agitator body, and wherein the second vane is spaced from the first vane around the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 13, VM further discloses that the loop extends along the agitator body from the first end of the agitator body to the second end of the agitator body (as seen in Figs. 1 and 4; the claim limitation does not require that the loop is uninterrupted from one end to the other, and clearly does extend from one end to the other with segmented portion 42 connecting each segment).
Regarding claim 14, VM further discloses that the loop extends along a portion of the agitator body in a direction from the first end of the agitator body toward the second end of the agitator body.
Regarding claim 15, VM further discloses that the agitator body has a length measured from the first end to the second end, wherein the loop extends along the length of the agitator body in a direction from the first end of the agitator body toward the second end of the agitator body.
Regarding claim 16, VM further discloses that the vane is composed of elastomeric material (disclosed optionally as rubber in Col. 3, lines 62-68, wherein rubber is known to be an elastomeric material).
Regarding claim 17, VM further discloses that the brushroll assembly rotates relative to the housing about a longitudinal axis that extends through the first end and the second end of the agitator body, and wherein the loop extends offset and parallel to the longitudinal axis (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 18, VM further discloses that the loop forms a hollow space between the vane and the agitator body.
Regarding claim 19, VM further discloses that the agitating member further includes a row of bristles (34).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermillion (4,372,004) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Eriksson (2013/0192024).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, although VM fails to disclose specific structure of the cleaner head, Eriksson discloses another similar vacuum cleaner head, also having a brushroll with bristles and vanes, and teaches that the housing includes an extending portion (202) directed inwardly towards the agitating body, the extending portion positioned within the brushroll chamber between the first and second ends configured to contact at least a portion of the vane (Fig. 3B) as the vane rotates past the extending portion in the brushroll chamber during operation, to remove accumulated hair and debris from the brushroll and maintain optimal performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the cleaner head for use with the brushroll of VM with a similar extending portion, configured to contact at least a portion of the vane as the vane rotates past the extending portion, as taught by Eriksson, to similarly remove accumulated hair and debris from the brushroll and maintain optimal performance.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermillion (4,372,004) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Beauchamp (6,367,120; to be referred to hereinafter as BC).
Regarding claim 8, VM fails to disclose a secondary agitator. However, BC discloses a similar agitator, also having a vane forming a loop (34), and also teaches that a secondary agitator in the form of a squeegee (37) may be provided to squeeze water and soil out of a carpet material being cleaned (Col. 4, line 66-Col. 5, line 4). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar secondary agitator in the form of a squeegee, to the brushroll of VM, as taught by BC, to provide additional functions of squeezing water and soil out of a carpet material being cleaned, to improve overall cleaning and liquid collection as needed.
Regarding claim 9, BC further discloses that the secondary cleaning member includes a single edge attached to the agitator body.
Regarding claim 10, VM and BC both further disclose that the brushroll assembly rotates relative to the housing about a longitudinal axis that extends through the first end and the second end of the agitator body, and BC further teaches that the secondary cleaning member is spaced at least 90 degrees from the vane around the longitudinal axis (upper secondary member 37 is at least 90 degrees from lower vane 34, and vice versa). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the secondary agitators taught by BC to the brushroll of VM with a similar spacing relative to the vanes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Powers (4,177,536), Vance (2,734,211), Riebel, Jr. et al. (2,064,857), Smellie (1,886,129 and 2,008,371), Hammel (2,512,544), White (1,815,084) and Segesman (2,649,603) disclose devices having similar structure to the applicant’s claimed invention.
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 3 April 2026
Prosecution Insights