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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed March 19, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 13-14. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The previous 103 as previously applied has been withdrawn due to applicant’s newly presented amendment. However, due to applicant’s newly presented amendment, a new interpretation of the Xing reference has been made and is described in the rejection below. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
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.
Claim 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xing (CN211355206).
Regarding claim 1, Xing discloses: a cleaning device (Figures 1-3,10-11, and see also paragraph 0096 where the prior art discloses the embodiment (figures 10-11) having the same or similar features of embodiment (figures 1-3) being indicated with the reference numerals combined with the letter “c”) comprising:
a body unit (elements 11c/12c) movable along one plane (element Fc);
a first suction unit (element 81c) extending in a first direction (see paragraph 0055 where the prior art discloses “air intake” is composed of element 81 and 82 being formed in the bottom of element 10, see also figure 1 showing element 10 extending in a first direction (x-direction left and right), thus the first suction unit is extending in the first direction) and arranged under the body unit (see figure 10 showing the first suction unit (element 81c) arranged portions of the body unit (element 11c)), and through which waste is suctionable (see figure 10 arrows and see also paragraphs 0055);
a second suction unit (element 82c) extending in the first direction (see paragraph 0055 where the prior art discloses “air intake” is composed of element 81 and 82 being formed in the bottom of element 10, see also figure 1 showing element 10 extending in a first direction (x-direction left and right), thus the second suction unit is extending in the first direction) and arranged under the body unit (see figure 10 showing the second suction unit (element 82c) arranged portions of the body unit (element 11c)), and through which waste is suctionable (see figure 10 arrows and see also paragraphs 0055);
a partition unit (element 70c) extending in the first direction (see paragraph 0077 where the prior art discloses element 70 (partition unit) fixed to an upper shelf (element 11) of element 10 see also figure 1 showing element 10 extending in a first direction (x-direction left and right), thus the partition unit is extending in the first direction) and arranged between the first suction unit and the second suction unit (see figure 10);
a roller unit (element 31c) arranged in the first suction unit (see figure 10 showing portions of the roller unit (element 31c) arranged in the first suction unit (element 81c)), extending in the first direction (see paragraph 0052 where the prior at discloses element 30 includes element 31 (roller unit), see paragraph 0050 where the prior at discloses element 30 is rotatably assembled on element 10, see also figure 1 showing element 10 extending in a first direction (x-direction left and right), thus the roller unit is extending in the first direction), and arranged to be rotatable around one axis extending in the first direction (see paragraphs 0050/0052);
a brush (element 32c and see also paragraph 0052 where the prior art discloses element 32c as “front bristles”) extending by a first length (see figure 10 annotated below Detail A showing a length starting from the outer circumferential surface (Detail B) of the roller and ending at the top/tip end surface of the brush (element 32c)) from an outer circumferential surface (see figure 10 annotated below Detail B) of the roller unit; and
a driving unit configured to generate power such that the roller unit rotates around the one axis (see paragraph 0050 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a roller brush motor” (driving unit)),
wherein the outer circumferential surface of the roller unit and the partition unit are arranged to be spaced apart from each other by a first distance (see figure 10 annotated below Detail C showing a first distance starting from the outer circumferential surface (Detail B) of the roller and ending at tip portion of partition unit (element 70c)), and
the first length of the brush extends from the outer circumferential surface of the roller unit is greater than the first distance (see paragraph 0077 where the prior art discloses “the extend end” (element 71c as best shown in figure 11) of element 70c (partition unit) is “inserted into” the front bristles of the brush (element 32c), see also figure 10 annotated below showing the first length (Detail A) that starts from the outer circumferential surface (Detail B) of the roller and ending at the top/tip end surface of the brush (element 32c) being greater than the first distance (Detail C) that is the tip portion of the partition unit (element 70c) which is inserted into the front bristles of the brush (element 32c)), and
an end portion (see figure 10 annotated below Detail D) of the partition unit is arranged at a predetermined distance (see figure 10 annotated below Detail E) farther from the one plane than an end portion (see figure 10 annotated below Detail F) of the brush located closest to the one plane (see figure 10 annotated below showing the predetermined distance (Detail E) being farther from the one place (element Fc) than the end portion (Detail F) of the brush (element 32c) closest to the one plane).
PNG
media_image1.png
936
1401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
936
1401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Xing discloses: the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the partition unit is inclined at a first angle (see figure 11 annotated below showing a portion of the partition unit being inclined at a first angle (Detail A)) with respect to the one plane.
PNG
media_image3.png
759
833
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Xing discloses: the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein a suction pressure of the first suction unit is greater than a suction pressure of the second suction unit (Per the applicants disclosure (see page 0008, paragraph 0004), “the first suction unit 31 where a roller unit 100 described below is arranged may have a suction area less than the suction area of the second suction unit 32 but may have a suction pressure greater than the suction pressure of the second suction unit 32”, similarly the prior art shows in the annotated figure 11 below the first suction unit (element 81c) having suction area (open area of element 81c) less than the second suction unit (element 82c) and therefore would necessarily have the first suction unit is greater than a suction pressure of the second suction unit, as recited.).
PNG
media_image4.png
816
844
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Xing: the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein a width (see figure 11 annotated below Detail A) of the second suction unit in a second direction (see figure 11 annotated below showing a cross section view of the device having the width (Detail A) which is formed in the bottom of element 10 and would necessarily extends in the left-right direction (y-axis and see figure 1), thus being in a second direction) perpendicular to the first direction is greater than the first distance between the outer circumferential surface of the roller unit and the partition unit (see figure 11 annotated below showing the tip portion of the partition wall (element 71c) inclined towards the outer circumferential surface of the roller unit and the width (Detail A) that extends left-right defined by the second suction unit (element 82) would necessarily be greater than the first distance (Detail B).
PNG
media_image5.png
764
1013
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 3-4, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN211355206).
Regarding claim 3, Xing discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1-2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first angle is 15 degrees to 75 degrees.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the first angle would result in a difference in function of the Xing modified cleaning device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the first angle of Xing modified, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angle. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating that “as an example” the first angle “may be” be 15 degrees to 75 degrees; “however, the disclosure is not limited thereto” (see page 0011 paragraph 0003 of specification) and therefore there is no criticality placed on the angle claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first angle to be 15 degrees to 75 degrees as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Xing discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein about the predetermined distance is 0.5mm to 3mm.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing to provide wherein about the predetermined distance is of about 0.5 mm to 3 mm above another end portion of the brush, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Xing would not operate differently with the claimed predetermined distance being 0.5 mm to 3 mm and would function appropriately having the claimed predetermined distance of 0.5 mm to 3 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, simply indicating one end portion “may be” arranged to face the cleaning target surface “may be” arranged at a height of about 0.5 mm to about 3 mm (see page 0011 paragraph 0003, of specification).
Regarding claim 7, Xing discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the first distance between the outer circumferential surface of the roller unit and the partition unit is 1 mm to 5.2 mm.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing to provide wherein the first distance between the outer circumferential surface of the roller unit and the partition unit is 1 mm to 5.2 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Xing would not operate differently with the claimed the first distance being 1 mm to 5.2 mm and would function appropriately having the claimed first distance being 1 mm to 5.2 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, simply indicating “for example”, the first distance D “may be” about 1 mm to about 5.2 mm; “however, the disclosure is not limited thereto.” (see page 0012 paragraph 0002, of specification).
Regarding claim 8, Xing: the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein a width (see figure 11 annotated below Detail A) of the second suction unit in a second direction (see figure 11 annotated below showing a cross section view of the device having the width (Detail A) which is formed in the bottom of element 10 and would necessarily extends in the left-right direction (y-axis and see figure 1), thus being in a second direction) perpendicular to the first direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
816
844
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Xing modified appears to be silent wherein the width is 4 mm to 20 mm.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing to provide wherein the width is 4 mm to 20 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Xing would not operate differently with the claimed width is about 4 mm to about 20 mm and would function appropriately having the claimed width is 4 mm to 20 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, simply indicating “an example”, of a width P of about 4 mm to about 20 mm, (see page 0013 paragraph 0004, of specification).
Regarding claim 9, Xing modified discloses: the cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising: a support frame (see figure 10 annotated below Detail A) in which the first suction unit, the second suction unit, and the partition unit are arranged (see figure 10 annotated below showing the first suction unit (element 81c), the second suction unit (element 82c), and the partition unit (element 50c) being operably arranged with the support frame (Detail A)), wherein the roller unit is arranged to be rotatable with respect to the support frame (see paragraph 0050 where the prior art discloses the roller brush “rotates around an axis”, thus the roller unit is arranged to be rotatable with respect to the support frame).
PNG
media_image7.png
890
1312
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Xing modified appears to be silent wherein the support frame which is detachable from the body unit.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Xing to provide wherein the support frame which is detachable from the body unit, since separating parts that were once integral involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having replaceable parts of the cleaning device would necessarily allow the user to interchange damaged parts instead of having to replace the entire cleaning device. (See MPEP 2144.04 (V))
Regarding claim 10, Xing modified discloses: the cleaning device of claim 9, wherein the support frame and the partition unit are integrally provided with each other (see figure 10 annotated above showing the support frame (Detail A) and the partition unit (element 70c) formed as a one piece construction, thus being integrally provided with each other).
Regarding claim 13, Xing modified discloses: the cleaning device of claim 9, wherein a cross-section of the roller unit in a second direction (left-right direction in the cross-sectional view (y-axis)) perpendicular to the first direction is circular shape (see figure 10 showing the cross-section of the roller unit (element 31c) being circular), a radius (see annotated figure 10 below Detail A) of the circular shape, and a length (see annotated figure 10 below Detail B) of the brush extending in a radial direction (see annotated figure 10 below Detail C) from the outer circumferential surface of the roller unit.
PNG
media_image8.png
890
1312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Xing modified appears to be silent wherein the radius is 6 mm to 18 mm and the length is 2.9 mm to 8.7 mm.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing to provide wherein the radius is 6 mm to 18 mm and the length is 2.9 mm to 8.7 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Xing would not operate differently with the claimed the radius is 6 mm to 18 mm and the length is 2.9 mm to 8.7 mm, and would function appropriately having the claimed the radius is 6 mm to 18 mm and the length is 2.9 mm to 8.7 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, simply indicating the length “may be” within the claim length (see page 0010 paragraph 0002, of specification) and the radius “may be” within the claim (see page 0009 paragraph 0004, of specification).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN211355206) in view of Linderoth (US Patent No. 2,968,055).
Regarding claim 11, Xing modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 9, but appears to be silent wherein the roller unit is arranged to be detachable from the support frame.
Linderoth is also concern in providing a cleaning device (Figures 1-4 and see also col. 1, ll. 48-52) comprising a roller unit (elements 4/5/11), a support frame (element 1), and wherein the roller unit is arranged to be detachable from the support frame (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing with the teachings of Linderoth to provide wherein the roller unit is arranged to be detachable from the support frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the roller unit be capable of being detachable from the support frame would necessarily allow the user to detach old worn out rollers and mount new rollers during cleaning operations.
Regarding claim 12, Xing modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 11, but appears to be silent further comprising: a bearing unit respectively arranged at both end portions of the one axis so as to support rotation of the roller unit about the one axis.
Linderoth is also concern in providing a cleaning device (Figures 1-4 and see also col. 1, ll. 48-52) comprising a roller unit (elements 4/5/11), a support frame (element 1), and further comprising: a bearing unit (elements 12/13 and see also col. 2, ll. 7-8 where the prior art discloses elements 12/13 are “bearing members”) respectively arranged at both end portions of the one axis so as to support rotation of the roller unit about the one axis (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing with the teachings of Linderoth to provide a bearing unit respectively arranged at both end portions of the one axis so as to support rotation of the roller unit about the one axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having bearings would necessarily provide the predictable result of increasing efficiency of movement of the cleaning device by reducing friction.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN211355206) in view of Beskow (US Pub. No. 2010/0083460).
Regarding claim 14, Xing modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the roller unit rotates around the one axis at a speed of 500 revolutions per minute (rpm) to 1,500 rpm.
Beskow is also concern in providing a cleaning device (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0029) comprising a roller unit (element 4) rotatable around an axis (see paragraph 0030) and wherein the roller unit rotates around the one axis at a speed of 500 revolutions per minute (rpm) to 1,500 rpm (see paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing with the teachings of Beskow to provide wherein the roller unit rotates around the one axis at a speed of 500 revolutions per minute (rpm) to 1,500 rpm. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a rotary speed of 500 rpm would necessarily reduce the risk that debris and dust will be thrown aside by the rotating roller as disclosed by Beskow (see paragraph 0020).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN211355206) in view of Jang (US Pub. No. 2019/0231161).
Regarding claim 15, Xing modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent further comprising: a sensor unit configured to sense a rotation speed of the roller unit; and a controller configured to control an operation of the driving unit by receiving the rotation speed of the roller unit from the sensor unit.
Jang is also concern in providing a cleaning device (Figures 1-22 and see also paragraph 0032) comprising a roller unit (element 130a and see also paragraph 0040) and silent further comprising: a sensor unit (element 813) configured to sense a rotation speed of the roller unit (see paragraph 0195/304); and a controller (element 20 and see also paragraph 0032) configured to control an operation of the driving unit by receiving the rotation speed of the roller unit from the sensor unit (see paragraph 0304).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xing with the teachings of Jang to provide a sensor unit configured to sense a rotation speed of the roller unit; and a controller configured to control an operation of the driving unit by receiving the rotation speed of the roller unit from the sensor unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a sensor and controller in the cleaning device would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to automatically control a desired speed of the roller during cleaning operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights