DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5 May 2026. These drawings are not entered because they are not considered to address the issues of the claimed axes intersecting as claimed and raise additional issues. See additional discussion below and proposed amendments to overcome the pending objections to the drawings and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
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 and 11), the end of the rear flow-guiding channel in communication with the main suction port being provided with a water storage groove having a corner structure (claims 1 and 11) and the angle between the central axes of the front and rear central axes being in a range between 20° and 50° (claims 2 and 12) 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 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, 2, 11, 12 and 14 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 and 11:
The limitation "a main suction port, sewage water collected with the aid of the front cleaning brush and 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. It is suggested that the applicant amend the limitation to "a main suction port[[,]] configured to collect sewage water
The limitations that both the front and rear flow-guiding channels communicate with the main suction port is further unclear because the channels meet prior to connection to the main suction port (indicated as 307 in the drawings), such that the limitation confuses which channel actually communicates directly with the main suction port, or if the limitation “in communication with” would allow for indirect communication.
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 axis (assumed to be the longitudinal central axis, with “axis” being universally defined as a line, not two intersecting lines, as shown in the replacement drawings) defined by the rear flow-guiding channel is clearly shown as a single line that will 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. The limitation is further confused by the disclosure that both the front flow-guiding channel and rear flow-guiding channel are in communication with the main suction port, due to both channels meeting prior to the main suction port. 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 (assumed to end at the intersection of the two channels).
The new limitation that an end of the rear flow-guiding channel that is in communication with the main suction port is provided with a water storage groove having a corner structure is further unclear because the corner is not formed at an end of the channel, and there is no additional structure in the form of a groove that is provided to the channel, because the channel defines the corner structure.
It is suggested that the applicant amend the limitations of lines 13-20 of claim 1 (and corresponding limitations of claim 11) as follows to overcome the issues addressed in section b.-d. above:
“a rear flow-guiding channel in communication with the rear suction port and in communication with the main suction port via the front flow-guiding channel 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 a portion of the rear flow- guiding channel, that intersects with the front flow-guiding channel, intersect with one another in the front flow-guiding channel,
wherein defines a corner structure that is configured to function as storage groove, the corner structure
Similarly, claims 8 and 19 should be amended to replace the term “water storage groove” with “corner structure”.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, as discussed in the previous Office Action, , 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/any portion of the rear flow-guiding member. The rejection is supported based on the applicant’s submitted Replacement Drawings, which show the central axes as intersecting within the front flow-guiding channel, but do not fall within the claimed ranges of claims 2 and 12. 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 rear flow-guiding member, and not necessarily parallel to the portion of the channel.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-13, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Yu et al. (CN 213850510) in view of Bian (CN 109157156A).
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 (upper end of 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 rear suction port and another end in communication with the main suction port via the front flow-guiding channel and configured to guide sewage water collected with the aid of the rear cleaning brush to the main suction port, wherein a central axis (X) of the front flow-guiding channel and a central axis (Y or Z; as defined above in the discussion of the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112) of a portion of the rear flow- guiding channel, that intersects with the front flow-guiding channel, intersect with one another in the front flow-guiding channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Yu fails 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 lower internal ends of respective conduits, configured 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(s) of Yu, 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 a lower corner structure of at least the rear flow-guiding channel of Yu (effectively forming a corner structure that will function as the water storage groove) 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 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°. See the rejection of claims 2 and 12 above; in order to read on the limitations of claims 2 and 12, at least the central axis of the rear flow-guiding channel has to be loosely defined as passing through a center of any portion of the channel, without necessarily being parallel to any section thereof, such that effectively any axis passing through any portion of the rear channel and intersecting the central axis of the front channel in the front channel (to meet the limitations of claims 1 and 11) will read on the limitations of claim 1, which will provide several included angles within the claimed range, such as axis Z shown above).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13, as noted above, the angles formed between the respective flow-guiding channels and the lower surface of the housing are shown by Yu to be nearly identical to the angles of the current invention (with the rear channel being inclined rather than declined from the front suction port at nearly identical angle), such that it would have been obvious for the first channel to be in a range greater than 30° and smaller than 40° to the bottom surface of the housing; and/or an included angle between the rear flow-guiding channel and the bottom surface of the housing in a range smaller than 15°, as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 vertically disposed on the front flow-guiding channel (the claim does not recite any specific structure or function for the positioning plate other than being vertically disposed on the channel, such that any plate located within the housing and extending in a vertical direction and/or extending from a direction vertical to the channel, such as A shown here, may be considered to be the positioning plate); 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 B 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 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.
Regarding claim 20, 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 previously took official notice, which was not traversed by the applicant and therefore is now considered to be applicant admitted prior art, 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) in view of Bian (CN 109157156A), as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Palobeis et al. (2003/0131442).
Regarding claims 6, 10 and 16, although Yu fails 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, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding that argument relating to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the limitation of “sewage water collected…”, the examiner maintains that the limitation is unclear, as pending. A proposed amendment is included in the updated rejection above to overcome the issue.
Regarding the argument relating the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the limitation defining the relative orientations of the central axes of the flow guiding channels, the examiner has provided additional discussion in the rejection above, as well as proposed amendment to overcome the issue. The proposed amendment would effectively define the front flow-guiding channel as extending from the front suction port to the main suction port, the rear flow-guiding channel as intersecting with, and ending at, the front flow-guiding channel prior to the main suction port, such that the intersecting axes of the front flow-guiding channel and the portion of the rear-flow guiding portion that intersects with the front flow-guiding channel will be located within the front flow-guiding channel.
Regarding the arguments relating to the prior art rejections, the examiner admits that the reference number 136 was applied in error, and should have been reference number 141, relating to the flexible “bag”, which is shown to be positioned at a location adjacent to the intersection of the two flow-guiding channels of Bian, and is considered to provide the same function and structure as the applicant’s claimed corner structure/water storage groove. The remainder of the applicant’s arguments relate to the second embodiment of Figs. 4-8 of Bian, whereas the examiner relies on the structure disclosed for the first embodiment of Figs. 1-3. In regard to the bag not being part of the flow-guiding channel, the bag could be considered to be part of the channel in the same manner that the applicant’s corner structure is part of the channel, clearly defining a border of the channel.
The examiner also notes that the Radimak reference may also be similarly applied to the pending claims, but is not included herein for the sake of compact prosecution.
Therefore, after consideration of the applicant’s arguments, the examiner maintains the above rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (inclusion of previous secondary reference to Bian to the rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 11) 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 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 August 2026
Prosecution Insights