DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 11 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.
Line 2 recites “annual coil”, which is a mistake. Replace “annual” with “annular”.
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 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR 2014/0138433 A) in view of McMaster (US 2,785,424).
As to claim 1, Yoo includes a floor treatment machine for cleaning and/or treating a floor surface, the floor treatment machine comprising:
a body portion provided with a rotatable floor-engaging treatment workhead (40) and a motor (30) [machine translation (MT), para 37] comprising a centrally disposed rotatable drive shaft (31) connected to the floor engaging workhead (31 is connected to 40 via belt 24, as seen in Fig. 3 and discussed in MT, paragraph 57), a stator (33) comprising an annular coil (320) disposed around the drive shaft (320 is wound all the way around 33 on the cores 300, forming a circular ring; MT, para 58), and a rotatable magnet assembly (32) disposed at a spaced location from the stator (32 is spaced from 33, as shown in Fig. 5b) and around the stator (32 rotates and has north and south pole magnets; MT, para 53-54), wherein the magnet assembly is coupled to the drive shaft and rotatable therewith (32 and its shaft 31 are rotatable as one; MT, para 53).
Yoo does not include: the motor comprising a centrally disposed rotatable drive shaft coaxial with and connected to the floor engaging workhead, and wherein the dimensions of the motor are selected such that the magnet assembly, drive shaft and floor treatment workhead are selectively rotatable at speeds in the range between 100 and 250 revolutions per minute and provide a predetermined torque selected according to the application.
McMaster includes a floor treatment machine (10) comprising a centrally disposed rotatable drive shaft (226) coaxial with and connected to a floor engaging workhead (285, 286). The stator 20 and rotor 21 drive a shaft 22, and 22 drives each of 153, gears 192, 193, and 225, and a drive shaft 226 located on workhead (285, 286) [column 14, lines 41-72].
It would have a matter of routine optimization to modify the rotation speed of the magnet assembly, drive shaft and floor treatment workhead to be in said range, which inherently provides a predetermined torque required, in order to select the right workhead rotation speed while bringing into consideration the cost of making a motor having said range, the needs of the customer, and the amount of work required to treat the floor at hand.
It would have been obvious to substitute the connectors between the workhead driving elements (stator 20 and rotor 21) and the workhead such that the motor comprises a centrally disposed rotatable drive shaft (226 of McMaster) coaxial with and connected to the floor engaging workhead [providing the stator 20 and rotor 21 driving a shaft 22, and 22 drives each of 153, gears 192, 193, and 225, and a drive shaft 226 located on workhead (285, 286)], as taught by McMaster, in order to provide an alternative driver for the workhead. The gears used by McMaster provide longer lasting functioning for the floor treatment machine. Any element that drives the workhead can be interpreted as an element of a motor. The motor elements are 20, 21, 22, 153, 192, 193, 225, and 226.
As to claim 2, wherein the motor comprises a motor housing (29) connected to the drive shaft (29 covers motor 30, which has a drive shaft 31, therefore, 29 is connected to 31; Fig. 1) and the magnet assembly is attached to an internal surface of the motor housing (magnet assembly 32 is attached to the interior of 29 via an element linking them) such that the magnet assembly is coaxial with and surrounds the internal stator (Fig. 5b).
As to claim 3, the secondary reference McMaster provides the workhead touching the drive shaft (226 of McMaster).
As to claim 4, wherein the dimensions of the motor that are selected to selectively drive the workhead within the required parameters include: flux area; diameter of the magnet assembly and internal stator; and/or depth of the magnet assembly and/or internal stator (The above dimensions given yield the workhead rotation speed range seen in claim 1).
As to claim 5, Yoo does not include: wherein the dimensions of the motor are selected such that the magnetic surface area is between around 90 and 140 cm2.
It would have a matter of routine optimization to modify the magnetic surface area to be in said range by changing the motor dimensions, in order to select the right workhead rotation speed while bringing into consideration the cost of making a motor having said range, the needs of the customer, and the amount of work required to treat the floor at hand.
As to claim 6, Yoo does not include: wherein the diameter of the motor is between around 120 and 160 mm.
It would have a matter of routine optimization to modify the diameter of the motor to be in said range, in order to select the right workhead rotation speed while bringing into consideration the cost of making a motor having said range, the needs of the customer, and the amount of work required to treat the floor at hand.
As to claim 7, Yoo does not include: wherein the depth of the magnet assembly and/or internal stator is between around 20 and 80 mm.
It would have a matter of routine optimization to modify the depth of the magnet assembly and/or internal stator to be in said range, in order to select the right workhead rotation speed while bringing into consideration the cost of making a motor having said range, the needs of the customer, and the amount of work required to treat the floor at hand.
As to claim 8, Yoo does not include: wherein the dimensions of the motor are selected to provide a torque of up to 12 Nm.
It would have a matter of routine optimization to modify the dimensions to provide said torque in order to select the right workhead rotation speed while bringing into consideration the cost of making a motor having said range, the needs of the customer, and the amount of work required to treat the floor at hand.
As to claim 9, wherein the annular magnet assembly comprises a plurality of high-density magnets (Multiple magnets are included. The magnets would be made of a metal, which is inherently high density; MT, para 54).
As to claim 12, the annular coil of the stator has a fractional slot winding (Fig. 5c shows a winding 320 wound around several slots that each makes up a fraction of the circumference of the stator).
Yoo does not include: wherein the stator comprises twelve cores with a fractional slot winding to achieve ten poles with three phases.
It would have a matter of routine optimization to modify the motor to have said core number, said pole number, and said phase number, in order to select the right workhead rotation speed while bringing into consideration the cost of making a motor having said range, the needs of the customer, and the amount of work required to treat the floor at hand.
It would have been obvious to modify the stator to have a lamination stack, as taught by Neumann, the lamination inhibiting corrosion (column 3, lines 30-33).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR 2014/0138433 A) in view of Fukuzaki (US 2022/0278567).
As to claim 10, the annular magnet assembly comprises a magnet arrangement of between eleven and seventeen alternately polarized magnets (16 alternately polarized magnets are illustrated in Fig. 5c).
Yoo does not include: the magnets as rare earth neodymium magnets.
Fukuzaki includes a motor (100) used in a vacuum cleaner having a rotatable magnet assembly (140), the rotatable magnet assembly made of rare earth neodymium (para 48-49 and Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to modify the annular magnet assembly to include rare earth neodymium magnets, as taught by Fukuzaki, in order to reduce eddy current loss, improve motor efficiency, and permit the motor to be downsized (para 49).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR 2014/0138433 A) in view of Neumann (US 3,587,939).
As to claim 11, the annular coil of the stator comprises windings around a core (Fig. 5c). Yoo does not include: the windings being copper windings and the core being laminated.
Neumann includes a motor for cleaning, comprising a stator with a laminated iron core (23; column 3, lines 30-33) with copper windings (The “copper wire”; column 4, lines 1-5) around the iron core.
It would have been obvious to modify the stator to have a laminated iron core with copper windings around the iron core, as taught by Neumann, iron being a standard affordable core material, the lamination inhibiting corrosion (column 3, lines 30-33), and the windings as copper also being a standard affordable option.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR 2014/0138433 A) in view of Lee (US 2017/0042401).
As to claim 13, Yoo does not include: the machine configured for the selective delivery of cleaning fluid to a floor surface in use, wherein the machine comprises a cleaning fluid reservoir and an actuation mechanism for the selective delivery of cleaning fluid to the floor surface via a cleaning fluid delivery line, and wherein the drive shaft comprises a throughbore through which cleaning fluid is deliverable to a floor surface in use via the cleaning fluid delivery line.
Lee includes a similar floor treatment machine, the machine configured for the selective delivery of cleaning fluid to a floor surface in use, wherein the machine comprises a cleaning fluid reservoir (30; para 41) and an actuation mechanism (The “input unit”; para 45) for the selective delivery of cleaning fluid to the floor surface via a cleaning fluid delivery line (51; para 47), and wherein the drive shaft (15) comprises a throughbore (16) through which cleaning fluid is deliverable to a floor surface in use via the cleaning fluid delivery line (para 50).
It would have been obvious to modify the machine to have: the machine configured for the selective delivery of cleaning fluid to a floor surface in use, wherein the machine comprises a cleaning fluid reservoir and an actuation mechanism for the selective delivery of cleaning fluid to the floor surface via a cleaning fluid delivery line, and wherein the drive shaft comprises a throughbore through which cleaning fluid is deliverable to a floor surface in use via the cleaning fluid delivery line, as taught by Lee, in order to permit liquid to reach the area being cleaned by the workhead via a path into the workhead irrespective of the rotation speed of it, which allows clean fluid dispersion and floor treatment using the same to occur at the same time.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR 2014/0138433 A) in view of Legatt (US 5,706,549).
As to claim 14, Yoo does not include: the machine configured as a floor scrubber drier, comprising a cleaning fluid reservoir, a waste fluid tank, a source of suction and a squeegee collector which is fluidly connected to the waste fluid tank and disposed behind the body portion with respect to a forward direction of travel in use, wherein the suction source is coupled to the squeegee collector, which collects waste fluid from the floor surface and feeds it into the waste fluid tank.
Legatt includes a similar floor treatment machine, the machine configured as a floor scrubber drier (Cleaning fluid is sucked from the surface cleaned; column 4, lines 51-67), comprising a cleaning fluid reservoir (18), a waste fluid tank (19), a source of suction (22) [column 4, lines 51-67] and a squeegee collector (166, 168) which is fluidly connected to the waste fluid tank (column 7, lines 27-44) and disposed behind the body portion with respect to a forward direction of travel in use (Fig. 1 and 4), wherein the suction source is coupled to the squeegee collector, which collects waste fluid from the floor surface and feeds it into the waste fluid tank.
It would have been obvious to modify the machine to have: the machine configured as a floor scrubber drier, comprising a cleaning fluid reservoir, a waste fluid tank, a source of suction and a squeegee collector which is fluidly connected to the waste fluid tank and disposed behind the body portion with respect to a forward direction of travel in use, wherein the suction source is coupled to the squeegee collector, which collects waste fluid from the floor surface and feeds it into the waste fluid tank, as taught by Legatt, the squeegee plus cleaning fluid spraying onto the surface being cleaned allowing the cleaning ability of the machine to be improved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights