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 central axes of the front flow- guiding channel and rear flow-guiding channel intersecting in the front flow guiding channel (claims 1, 11 and 15) and the water storage groove formed in the corner structure (claims 7, 14 and 18) having an arc an angle (claims 8 and 19) as claimed (See further discussion under 35 U.S.C. 112 below) 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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As discussed below, relative to 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the limitations of claim 9 are not considered to further limit the structure set forth in claim 1, wherein claim 15 only differs from claim 1 by the addition of the limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 15 is effectively a duplicate of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-15 and 17-19 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 claims 1, 11 and 15:
The limitation "sewage water collected with the aid of the floor, cleaning brush in the rear cleaning brush entering the main suction port" is unclear because it appears to suggest an intended use function without relating the function to any of the claimed structure.
As noted above relative to the drawings, the drawings do not show structure that supports the limitation that the central axes of the front flow-guiding channel and rear flow-guiding channel intersect in the front flow guiding channel. To the contrary, the central access (assumed to be the longitudinal central axis) defined by the rear flow-guiding channel is clearly shown to pass below any central portion of the front flow-guiding channel, with the axes (A and B) intersecting at a location exterior to either flow-guiding channel, as shown here. As best understood by the examiner, the central axes would only be supported to intersect within the any portion of the flow-guiding member if the central axis of the rear flow-guiding member is defined as the central axis of a portion of the rear flow-guiding member (such as at C), which still passes through a portion of the flow-guiding member that appears to be external to the front flow-guiding member, being downstream from the intersection of the front and rear flow-guiding members. Further, the only way that the claimed limitation would actually be considered to be supported by the drawings, would be if the central axis of the rear flow-guiding member is defined as passing through a center of a portion of the rear flow-guiding member and is only applicable if passing through a center of the curved
PNG
media_image1.png
498
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
portion and being parallel to a tangent of the curved portion. Therefore, for the sake of the current Office Action, the limitation will be treated to refer to any axis passing through a center of any portion of the respective flow-guiding members.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13, the limitations relating structure of the claimed invention to “a ground” is unclear because the claimed invention as a whole is not fixed relative to a/the ground surface. Therefore, the claimed angles may vary relative to the ground, depending on the orientation of the claimed apparatus as a whole, making the limitations unclear because they are only accurate and applicable, when in certain orientations. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claims to relate the claimed angles to other part(s) of the claimed apparatus to more definitively claim the structure.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 17, the limitation that the positioning plate is close" to the front flow guiding channel inlet is also unclear because the term "close to "is a relative term that does not provide any definitive structure or relative distance.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 18 the claimed water storage groove appears to be the same as the corner structure in the drawings (i.e. the corner forms the water collection space), as opposed to an additional groove structure that is formed in the corner of the rear flow guiding channel. Thus the claims are unclear because there is no support in the drawings for a separate water storage groove to clarify how or where such a groove is formed in the corner structure.
Similarly, for claims 8 and 19, it is unclear how the water storage groove forms any specific angle, because there is no clear structure for the groove that is formed in the corner structure as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation set forth in the claim appears to merely reiterate the structure that is disclosed in claim 1 (front and rear flow-guiding channels both leading to the main suction port), from which it depends, using different terminology, and therefore fails to further limit any previously claim structure. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 9, 11-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (CN 213850510).
Regarding claims 1 and 11 (claim 11 only differing by the claimed handle and main scrubber body), Yu discloses a scrubber, comprising: a handle (shown in Fig. 1); a main scrubber body (100); and a scrubbing brush (2 or 3) located at an end of the main scrubber body and comprising: a housing having a front part (at 3) and a rear part (at 2) that are opposite to each other; a front cleaning brush (3) disposed in the front part of the housing; a rear cleaning brush (2) disposed in the rear part of the housing; a main suction port (13), being capable of functioning to collect sewage water with the aid of the front cleaning brush and the rear cleaning brush and directing the sewage water to enter the main suction port when a suction force is applied to the main suction port; a front suction port facing toward the front cleaning brush; a rear suction port facing toward the rear cleaning brush; a front flow-guiding channel (15) having an end in communication with the main suction port and another end in communication with the front suction port, and configured to guide sewage water collected with the aid of the front cleaning brush to the main suction port; and a rear flow-guiding (14) channel having an end in communication with the main suction port and another end in communication with the rear suction port, and configured to guide sewage water collected with the aid of the rear cleaning brush to the main suction port, wherein a central axis of the front flow-guiding channel and a central axis of the rear flow- guiding channel intersect in the front flow-guiding channel (as noted above, the claim limitation is only supported for the current application if/when the central axes are defined as any axis passing through a center of any portion of the flow-guiding members, which is provided with the axes as shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
298
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Yu further discloses an included angle between the central axis of the front flow-guiding channel and the central axis of the rear flow-guiding channel is in a range greater than 20° and smaller than 50° (again, in order to read on the final limitation of claim 1, the axes are loosely defined, wherein the axes as shown above do fall within the claimed range, and other axes may also be provided to read on the limitation, as best understood to be supported by the drawings, that would also provide other included angles within the claimed range).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13, as noted above, the angles formed between the respective flow-guiding channels and “a ground” would be variable, depending on the orientation of the claimed invention relative to the ground, such that the device of Yu is inherently capable of being oriented such that an included angle between the front flow-guiding channel and a ground is in a range greater than 30° and smaller than 40°; and/or an included angle between the rear flow-guiding channel and a ground is in a range smaller than 15°, as claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Yu further discloses that the front flow-guiding channel comprises a front flow-guiding channel inlet, with a positioning plate (the claim does not recite any specific structure or function for the positioning plate, such that any plate located within the housing, such as X shown above, may be considered to be the positioning plate) being disposed close to (as noted above, the term “close to” is a relevant term, such that any structure within the cleaning head may be considered to be “close to” the inlet) the front flow-guiding channel inlet; and wherein the housing has a fixing plate (again, no structure other than engagement with the positioning plate, and no function claimed, such that any plate, such as Y shown above, may be considered to be the fixing plate) provided therein, the fixing plate and the positioning plate being engaged with each other.
Regarding claims 9 and 15 (claim 15 only differing from claim 1 due to the inclusion of the limitation of claim 9), the structure disclosed for the flow guiding member, as set forth in claim 1, is equivalent to a three- way flow-guiding member, wherein the main suction port, the front flow-guiding channel, and the rear flow-guiding channel are all disposed on the three-way flow-guiding member.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radimak (1,417,768).
Regarding claims 1 and 11 (claim 11 only differing by the claimed handle and main scrubber body), Radimak discloses a scrubber, comprising: a handle (49); a main scrubber body (10); and a scrubbing brush (11/12) located at an end of the main scrubber body and comprising: a housing having a front part (at 12) and a rear part (at 11) that are opposite to each other; a front cleaning brush (12) disposed in the front part of the housing; a rear cleaning brush (11) disposed in the rear part of the housing; a main suction port (end of upper conduit that connects conduits 17 and 18), being capable of functioning to collect sewage water with the aid of the front cleaning brush and the rear cleaning brush and directing the sewage water to enter the main suction port when a suction force is applied to the main suction port; a front suction port facing toward the front cleaning brush (open end of conduit 18 at comb 45 is at least partially directed toward the brush 12); a rear suction port facing toward the rear cleaning brush (open end of conduit 17 at comb 45 is at least partially directed toward the brush 11); a front flow-guiding channel (18) having an end in communication with the main suction port and another end in communication with the front suction port, and configured to guide sewage water collected with the aid of the front cleaning brush to the main suction port; and a rear flow-guiding (17) channel having an end in communication with the main suction port and another end in communication with the rear suction port, and configured to guide sewage water collected with the aid of the rear cleaning brush to the main suction port, wherein a central axis (a) of the front flow-guiding channel and a central axis (b1 or b2) of the rear flow- guiding channel intersect in the front flow-guiding channel (as noted above, the claim limitation is only supported for the current application if/when the central axes are defined as any axis passing through a center of any portion of the flow-guiding members, which is provided with the axes as shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Radimak further discloses an included angle between the central axis of the front flow-guiding channel and the central axis of the rear flow-guiding channel is in a range greater than 20° and smaller than 50° (again, in order to read on the final limitation of claim 1, the axes are loosely defined, wherein the axes as shown above do fall within the claimed range, and other axes may also be provided to read on the limitation, as best understood to be supported by the drawings, that would also provide other included angles within the claimed range).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13, as noted above, the angles formed between the respective flow-guiding channels and “a ground” would be variable, depending on the orientation of the claimed invention relative to the ground, such that the device of Radimak is inherently capable of being oriented such that an included angle between the front flow-guiding channel and a ground is in a range greater than 30° and smaller than 40°; and/or an included angle between the rear flow-guiding channel and a ground is in a range smaller than 15°, as claimed. Further, due to the curvature of both flow-guiding channels, the central axes may be provided in a wide range of angles, such that the claimed angles would also read on axes passing through central portions of the respective channels when the scrubbing brush is positioned on a floor surface in the orientation shown in Fig. 1 of Radimak.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Radimak further discloses that the front flow-guiding channel comprises a front flow-guiding channel inlet, with a positioning plate (the claim does not recite any specific structure or function for the positioning plate, such that any plate located within the housing, such as x shown above, may be considered to be the positioning plate) being disposed close to (as noted above, the term “close to” is a relevant term, such that any structure within the cleaning head may be considered to be “close to” the inlet) the front flow-guiding channel inlet; and wherein the housing has a fixing plate (again, no structure other than engagement with the positioning plate, and no function claimed, such that any plate, such as y shown above, may be considered to be the fixing plate) provided therein, the fixing plate and the positioning plate being engaged with each other.
Regarding claims 9 and 15 (claim 15 only differing from claim 1 due to the inclusion of the limitation of claim 9), the structure disclosed for the flow guiding member, as set forth in claim 1, is equivalent to a three- way flow-guiding member, wherein the main suction port, the front flow-guiding channel, and the rear flow-guiding channel are all disposed on the three-way flow-guiding member.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 213850510).
Although Yu fails to disclose any sealing member at the connections between respective front and rear flow-guiding channels, and the other portions of the scrubber head, the examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art for vacuum cleaners to preferably form sealed conduit(s) from the dirty air inlet all the way to the suction motor, to optimize suction force at the inlet for ideal collection of debris and/or liquids. Therefore, if would have been obvious anyone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide some form of sealing ring (ring shape due to tubular conduits shown by Yu) at each of the locations that the front and rear channels connect to the respective parts of the cleaning head, to provide the optimal sealing between conduit portions, to prevent any suction airflow loss that would reduce collection capabilities at the dirty air inlet.
Claims 6, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Yu et al. (CN 213850510) or Radimak (1,417,768) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 15 and in view of Palobeis et al. (2003/0131442).
Regarding claims 6, 10 and 16, although both Yu and Radimak fail to disclose a fixing screw hole, or a cover body that covers an opening on the side of the flow-guiding member, Palobeis discloses a suction channel for a similar vacuum cleaner having a removable plate (190) that closes an open section of a conduit (210) to allow a user to remove the panel for cleaning out blockages within the suction conduit as needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar opening in the three-way flow-guiding member of Yu and Radimak, with a cover body configured to block the opening when installed thereon, as taught by Palobeis, to allow a user to open and clean the conduits of blockages as needed (claims 10 and 16). Regarding claim 6, Palobeis also discloses that the at least one screw hole (206/214) is provided to allow for connection of the cover body, wherein any position of such a screw hole would be considered to be “close to” the front flow-guiding channel inlet, and which would be positioned at a side of the positioning plate facing away from the front flow-guiding channel inlet (again, effectively any plate may be considered to be the claimed positioning plate, including the securing plate 204 of the cover body of Palobeis, wherein the screw hole 214 would be considered to be positioned at a side of the positioning plate, and also facing away from the flow-guiding channel inlet).
Claims 7, 8, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Yu et al. (CN 213850510) or Radimak (1,417,768) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 15, and in view of Bian (CN 109157156A).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 18, although both Yu and Radimak fail to disclose a water storage groove in the rear flow-guiding member, Bian discloses a very similar structure having a flexible membrane (136) positioned below the central portion of the, to collect liquid that remains in the flow-guiding member or other suction conduit after the vacuum motor has been stopped, which will prevent the remaining liquid from dripping back out of the suction inlets onto the surface that has been cleaned. Therefore, it would've been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar membrane to the flow-guiding member, that is capable of forming a water storage groove (as shown in Fig. 2), in the bottom portion of the flow-guiding channels, as taught by Bian, to prevent drippage of excess liquid in the conduit after use. Further, the location of the water storage groove taught by Bian would obviously be positioned at lower corner structures of at least the rear flow-guiding channel of each of Yu and Radimak (affectively forming a water storage groove in the corner structure) to ensure collection of liquid therein from reaching the respective suction inlets, as well as any suction conduits further downstream from and located above the flow guiding channels.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the flexible membrane taught by Bian, when applied as a water storage grove, will be capable of forming a wide range of different arc angles due to the flexible nature, including angles within the claim range. Particularly when collecting water, the gravitational pull will direct liquid to a central lower most portion of the flexible membrane and provide an angle within the claim range.
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 6 January 2026