DETAILED 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, 7, 13-15, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (2,734,212).
Regarding claim 1, Koch discloses a brushroll, intended for use in a nozzle of a suction cleaning device (Col. 1, lines 15-19). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide the brushroll of Koch to the nozzle of a commonly known vacuum cleaner head, almost universally comprising a housing; a brushroll chamber having an opening in a bottom side of the housing having a brushroll chamber and opening in the bottom for the brushroll of Koch to be operably mounted in the brushroll chamber with an agitating member extending through the opening (again, nearly universal for floor cleaners with brushrolls). Koch discloses that the brushroll assembly includes an agitator body (16/20) 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 (1) extending longitudinally along the agitator body and connected to the agitator body along a first vane edge and a second vane edge (both shown as reference number 3 in Figs. 1 and 4) such that the vane forms a loop between the first vane edge and second vane edge, the loop extending outwardly away from the agitator body (away from part 20 and opposite side of 16), to form a space (shown with reference numbers 3, 8 and 11 in Fig. 4) between the loop and the agitator body, wherein the vane includes a plurality of apertures (7) extending longitudinally along the vane in a direction from the fist end of the agitator body toward the second end of the agitator body, each of the plurality of apertures (at least formed by staples 10 passing therethrough) extending through the loop to the space between the loop and the agitator body.
Regarding claim 2, although Koch 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 Koch 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, Koch further discloses a first coupler (shoulder 4) connected to the first vane edge and a second coupler (4) 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 (again, outwardly from 20 and opposite side of 16).
Regarding claim 7, Koch further discloses a row of bristles (2) extending from the agitator body, through the corresponding plurality of apertures aligned therewith and configured to contact the surface to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 13, Koch further discloses that the loop extends along the agitator body from the first end of the agitator body (can slide into retaining structure from one end of the cylinder; Col. 1, lines 33-36 to the second end of the agitator body (as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Koch 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, Koch further discloses that the agitator body has a length measured from the first end to the second end (inherent for any 3-dimensional object), 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 18, Koch further discloses that the loop forms a hollow space between the vane and the agitator body (as discussed for claim 1, as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Koch further discloses that the agitating member further includes a row of bristles (2).
Regarding claim 21, Koch further discloses that the plurality of apertures each extend through a curved portion of the loop (at least the apertures are shown to have curved perimeters, and the loop itself is also considered to be curved, to form an apex of the loop at the apertures.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (2,734,212) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Eriksson (2013/0192024).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, although Koch 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 Koch 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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (2,734,212) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Beauchamp (6,367,120; to be referred to hereinafter as BC).
Regarding claim 8, Koch shows a secondary agitator opposite the vane, but fails to disclose any specific structure for the secondary agitator. C 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 Koch, 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, Koch 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 less than 90 degrees from the vane around the longitudinal axis (clearly shown as being spaced apart from one another by less than 90 degrees). 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 Koch with a similar spacing relative to the vanes and secondary agitators.
Regarding claim 11, Koch, as modified by BC, as discussed supra, further provides the vane as a first vane and wherein the agitating member as taught by BC further includes a second vane extending longitudinally along the agitator body, which would obviously have the same form as the first vane of Koch, with similar spacing as the vanes (34) of BC, 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, Koch 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 (as taught by BC) is spaced from the first vane around the longitudinal axis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (2,734,212) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Vermillion (4,372,004).
Regarding claim 16, Koch further discloses that the vane is composed of bendable/flexible material (Col. 2, lines 36-40), having sufficient flexibility to twist into a helix (Col. 1, lines 60-62), but Koch fails to disclose that the vane is an elastomeric material. Vermillion discloses another similar agitator, also having a vane structure and also teaching a plastic that has sufficient flexibility to twist into a spiral groove (Col. 1, lines 49-57) and more specifically discloses that the vane (28) may be formed of a rubber or plastic molding (disclosed optionally as rubber in Col. 3, lines 62-68, wherein rubber is known to be an elastomeric material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally form the vane of Koch from a rubber material, as taught by Vermillion as a known alternative to the plastic taught by Koch, and which will be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be readily available, and commonly more durable than plastic due to the elastomeric properties.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (2,734,212) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Segesman (2,649,603).
Regarding claim 17, Koch 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 the longitudinal axis, but does not extend parallel to the longitudinal axis due to the helical shape. However, Segesman discloses another similar brushroll, also for vacuum cleaners, and teaches that bristles (24) and secondary agitator members (37) may both optionally extend around the body in a helical shape (Fig. 3) or alternatively in a linear shape, (Fig. 1) parallel to the longitudinal axis of the roller body. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally extend the vane of Koch around the body in an alternative linear shape, as taught by Segesman as being a known alternative in the art, which may provide alternative cleaning results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11 August 2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of all pending claims 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 Koch (2,734,212), as discussed above.
Regarding the arguments relating to the Election Requirement, the election was previously addressed in the Non-Final Rejection, dated 15 April 2026, and has been made final.
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.
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 5 October 2026
Prosecution Insights