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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 25 March, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 “magnetic attraction structure through which the other side of the bottom shell is connected to a second rolling brush support” recited in claim 16 and “attachment component includ[ing] one or more of a mite removal brush, a flat brush, a hair brush, a pet brush, a hose, and the attachment component is detachably connected to the handheld dust collection device” recited in claim 35 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
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “the floor brush or floor” in claim 1 is grammatically ambiguous. Consider ––the floor brush or a floor––.
The limitation of “a first concave configured to avoid the first protrusion” in claim 14 is grammatically improper. Consider ––provided with a first concave surface configured to avoid the first protrusion––.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 7, 10-11, 13-17, 22-23, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, and 37 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 17, 22, 23, 26, and 37 contain numerous limitations of the form “along a/the [length/width/height] direction of the [component]”. It is not entirely clear whether each of the directions refer to specific directions defined in terms of the cited component (e.g., a length direction of the working portion and a length direction of the cleaning liquid tank might refer to different directions, since they are defined in terms of different structural elements), or the same direction (e.g. a length of the working portion in a first direction and a length of the tank in the first direction). Because it is unclear if these limitations refer to the same directions, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claims 3-5, 7, 10-11, 13-17, 22-23, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, and 37 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “sums of sizes of a working portion of the floor brush along the height direction of the working portion and sizes of the cleaning liquid tank along the height direction of the cleaning liquid tank”. It is unclear which "sums of sizes" this limitation refers to.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation “the installation chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zou (CN 112790683 A).
1. Zou teaches a cleaning device, comprising
a machine body (1),
a cleaning liquid tank (8, note: cleaning liquid tank 8 is mislabeled as 12 on Zou fig. 4), and
a floor brush (2),
wherein the floor brush (2) is connected to an end of the machine body (1, see Zou fig. 1),
the cleaning liquid tank (8) is arranged above the floor brush (2, Zou figs. 4-5), and
the cleaning liquid tank is configured to provide cleaning liquid for the floor brush or floor (Zou Translation [0022]), and
the cleaning liquid tank is located on the floor brush, projections of the floor brush and the cleaning liquid tank along a height direction are basically rectangular in shape (when viewed from above, brush 2 and tank 8 are basically rectangular, see Zou figs. 4-5), and
a maximum size of the cleaning liquid tank along a length direction of the cleaning liquid tank is basically consistent with a maximum size of the floor brush along the length direction of the floor brush (tank 8 and brush 2 have consistent dimensions so as to fit together, see Zou figs. 4-5).
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 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7, Zou teaches that the floor brush includes a working portion (7, Zou figs. 4-5 and Zou Translation [0021]).
Zou does not teach specific details regarding the relative lengths, heights, widths, volumes, or capacities of the working portion or cleaning liquid tank.
However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zou such that a maximum size of the working portion along the length direction of the working portion is 250-270 mm, a ratio of the maximum size of the working portion along a width direction of the working portion to the maximum size of the working portion along the length direction of the working portion is 0.5-0.7, and/or a ratio of a volume of the cleaning liquid tank to a volume of the working portion is 0.3-0.6;
wherein a ratio of a maximum size of a working portion of the floor brush along a height direction of the working portion to a maximum size of the working portion along the length direction of the working portion is 0.25-0.55;
a ratio of a maximum size of the cleaning liquid tank along a width direction of the cleaning liquid tank to a maximum size of a working portion of the floor brush along the width direction of the working portion is 0.5-0.7; or a ratio of a maximum size of the cleaning liquid tank along the height direction of the cleaning liquid tank to a maximum value of sums of sizes of a working portion of the floor brush along the height direction of the working portion and sizes of the cleaning liquid tank along the height direction of the cleaning liquid tank is 0.4-0.7; and
a ratio of a capacity of the cleaning liquid tank and a volume of the cleaning liquid tank is not less than 0.35, and a center of gravity of the cleaning liquid tank along the height direction of the cleaning liquid tank is projected in a middle region of the cleaning liquid tank.
Such modifications would have been obvious, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Zou is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is 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 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
Claims 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Chaney (US 8375506).
10. Zou teaches the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the floor brush (2) includes an installation shell (21), an upper cover (forming a top part of tank 8), and a rolling brush (7),
two ends of the rolling brush are rotatably connected to the installation shell (ends of 7 are connected to 21, Zou fig. 5), and the upper cover and the cleaning liquid tank are located at an upper portion of the installation shell (tank 8 including its upper surface are located on top of 21, Zou figs. 4-5), a top surface of the cleaning liquid tank is basically flush with a top surface of the upper cover (upper cover forms top of liquid tank, and consequently is flush with itself, Zou figs. 4-5), wherein the and the upper cover and cleaning liquid tank are detachably connected to the installation shell (Zou figs. 4-5).
Zou does not teach that the cleaning liquid tank and the upper cover are independently arranged, or that the cleaning liquid tank is installed on the installation shell through a magnetic attraction structure.
However, Chaney teaches a cleaning device (Chaney fig. 1) and further teaches that it may be desirable to make an upper cover (108) of a water tank (26) detachable (Chaney 5:15-47 and figs 2-6), and further teaches that a tank may be attached via magnetic connections (Chaney 7:7-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings from Chaney regarding improvements for a water tank in a cleaning device into the cleaning device of Zou such that the cleaning liquid tank and the upper cover were separable (i.e., were independently arranged) and the cleaning liquid tank was installed on the installation shell through a magnetic attraction structure, as doing so would allow for access to the internals of the tank for cleaning or repair and would improve the alignment of components without manipulating a complex system of latches (Chaney 5:43-47 and 7:7-25).
16. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 10, wherein the installation chamber includes a bottom shell (21 includes a lower shell portion, see Zou fig. 5), a side of the bottom shell is fixed with a first rolling brush support part (brush 7 is secured to 21 on either side by support parts, See Zou fig. 5).
Zou as modified does not explicitly teach that the other side of the bottom shell is connected to a second rolling brush support through a magnetic attraction structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zou according to the teachings of Chaney regarding the use of magnets with removable components such that the other side of the bottom shell was connected to a second rolling brush support through a magnetic attraction structure, as doing so would have allowed for improved alignment of the rolling brush and support with the shell without the need for a complex system of latches or other connecting mechanisms. (Chaney 5:43-47 and 7:7-25).
17. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 10 and further teaches that the floor brush includes a working portion (7, Zou figs. 4-5 and Zou Translation [0021]).
Zou does not teach specific details regarding the relative lengths, heights, widths, volumes, or capacities of the working portion.
However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zou such that a ratio of a maximum size of the rolling brush along the length direction of the rolling brush to the maximum size of the working portion of the floor brush along the length direction of the working portion is not less than 0.9, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Zou is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is 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 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
Claims 11, 13-15, 22-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou and Chaney as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of in view of Wang (CN 109431373).
11. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 10, and further teaches the presence of a suction source that sucks garbage cleaned by the floor brush (Zou Translation [0022]), a pump configured to pump out the cleaning liquid in the cleaning liquid tank (Zou Translation [0021]), a nozzle for cleaning liquid configured to spray cleaning liquid under an action of the pump (Zou Translation [0021]).
Zou does not explicitly disclose that the installation shell includes a bottom shell and a top cover, an installing chamber of the floor brush being formed between the bottom shell and the top cover, the floor brush includes a suction port for inhaling garbage, the suction port being located at a front side of the installation shell and a rear side of the rolling brush, the installing chamber of the floor brush being provided with a first channel communicating with the suction port, and the installing chamber of the floor brush is provided with a pump, and the upper cover is installed with a nozzle.
However, Wang teaches an installation shell for a floor brush (10), wherein the installation shell includes a bottom shell (100), a top cover (800), and a rolling brush (101), an installing chamber of the floor brush being formed between the bottom shell and the top cover (space for brush 101 is between 100 and 800, see Wang figs. 2-3), the floor brush includes a suction port for inhaling garbage (suction port 120 is adjacent brush 101, see Wang fig. 3), the suction port being located at a front side of the installation shell and a rear side of the rolling brush (120 is in a forward portion of bottom shell 101 and behind brush 101, see Wang figs. 2-3), the installing chamber of the floor brush being provided with a first channel communicating with the suction port (channel between 120 and port 210, see Wang fig. 3), and the installing chamber of the floor brush is provided with a pump (620), and the upper cover is installed with a nozzle (nozzle 610, see Wang figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning device of Zou as modified according to the teachings of Wang regarding components in a floor brush such that the installation shell includes a bottom shell and a top cover, an installing chamber of the floor brush being formed between the bottom shell and the top cover, the floor brush includes a suction port for inhaling garbage, the suction port being located at a front side of the installation shell and a rear side of the rolling brush, the installing chamber of the floor brush being provided with a first channel communicating with the suction port, and the installing chamber of the floor brush is provided with a pump, and the upper cover is installed with a nozzle, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
13. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 11, wherein the top cover includes an accommodating slot, and the cleaning liquid tank being located within the accommodating slot (Zou teaches that an upper portion of 21 includes a slot for housing tank 8, Zou figs. 4-5; Wang teaches a slot in cover 800 for a tank 500, Wang fig. 1), a top end of the pump is higher than a lowest surface in the accommodating slot (pump sits above bottom surface of lower housing 100, which is the lowest portion of the slot for the tank, see Wang fig. 1), and/or a top end of the first channel is higher than the lowest surface in the accommodating slot (channel between 120 and 210 is in the middle to top of the housing, which is higher than a lowest surface in the slot for tank 500, see Wang fig. 3).
14. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 13, wherein a first protrusion is provided on a bottom surface of the accommodating slot and configured to at least partially accommodate the pump, and a bottom portion of the cleaning liquid tank is provided with a first concave configured to avoid the first protrusion (Wang shows a square enclosure on the lower housing positioned approximately where the pump 620 would sit and that a lower portion of tank 500 has cutouts corresponding to structural elements, see Wang fig. 1; in modifying Zou, they would have found it obvious to include protrusions to ensure that the pump was positioned correctly and prevent it from moving around during normal use, and likewise would have found it obvious to ensure that the tank used as much volume as possible without intruding on existing structural features, which would lead it to have a hollow portion aligned with the protruding pump).
15. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 11, wherein the floor brush further includes a first motor, the first motor being configured to drive the rolling brush to rotate (Zou teaches that the floor brush rotates and the presence of a floor brush motor, Zou Translation [n0021]).
Zou as modified does not specify a location for a floor brush motor.
However, it has been held that where the sole difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the particular placement of an element, the particular placement of that element is—absent some indication that changing the position of the element would have modified the operation of the device—an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Because the disclosure assigns no particular weight to the particular placement of the motor relative to the pump or rolling brush, the particular location for the motor is an obvious matter of design choice. Consequently, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zou such that the first motor is located in the installation chamber of the floor brush and on a side of the first channel away from the pump, or the first motor is arranged within the rolling brush.
22. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 13, wherein along a height direction of the floor brush, a maximum size of the cleaning liquid tank is greater than a size of the accommodating slot (Wang teaches a tank extending above the slot, which would have been integrated into Zou when modified to incorporate the teachings of Wang, see Wang figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 23 and 26, Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 11, but does not specifically teach that, along a length direction of the floor brush, two ends of the top cover are provided with a convex edge, both sides of the cleaning liquid tank are provided with a slot, and the convex edge is correspondingly arranged in the slot.
However, Wang teaches the use of grooves and cooperating ribs in connecting housing elements (Wang Translation [0067]-[0068]), and further teaches that along a height direction of the floor brush, the both sides of the cleaning liquid tank are provided with a convex portion protruding towards the both sides of the cleaning liquid tank relative to the slot (tank 500 has protruding side portions that sit on the top portion of the slot, see Wang fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top cover and tank of Zou as modified according to the teachings of Wang such that along a length direction of the floor brush, two ends of the top cover are provided with a convex edge, both sides of the cleaning liquid tank are provided with a slot, and the convex edge is correspondingly arranged in the slot and wherein along a height direction of the floor brush, the both sides of the cleaning liquid tank are provided with a convex portion, the convex portion protruding towards the both sides of the cleaning liquid tank relative to the slot, as doing so would prevent water (e.g., from spillage when filling the tank) from getting inside the shell and potentially damaging components (Wang Translation [0068]).
Zou as modified does not teach specific details regarding the relative lengths, heights, widths, volumes, or capacities of the cleaning liquid tank, floor brush, convex edge, or convex portion.
However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zou such that, along a height direction of the floor brush, a ratio of a size of the slot to a maximum size of the cleaning liquid tank is 0.4-0.7; and along the length direction of the floor brush, a size of the convex edge is 7-10 mm, and along the height direction of the floor brush, a maximum size of the convex portion is 10-20 mm, and/or along the length direction of the floor brush, a size of the convex portion is 8-15 mm.
Such modifications would have been obvious, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Zou is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is 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 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
Claims 28, 30, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Zhang et al. (CN 209499621, "Zhang").
28. Zou teaches the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the cleaning device further includes:
a dirt storage tank (4), the floor brush (2) communicates with the dirt storage tank through a first channel (at bottom of 4, see Zou fig. 3), and the dirt storage tank is detachably connected to the machine body (Zou fig. 3).
Zou does not teach that the cleaning device further includes: a handheld dust collection device, the machine body is provided with a fixed seat, the handheld dust collection device is arranged on the fixed seat, and the handheld dust collection device is detachably connected to the machine body through the fixed seat, wherein the dirt storage tank is located at an end of the fixed seat away from the handheld dust collection device, and the dirt storage tank is detachably connected to the machine body through the fixed seat.
However, Zhang teaches a cleaning device (100, Zhang fig. 2) including a handheld dust collection device (50) detachably connected to a machine body via a fixed seat (50 sits on, and is removable from, 10, see Zhang figs. 1 and 2), and a dirt storage tank (40) located at an end of the fixed seat away from the handheld dust collection device (see Zhang figs. 1 and 2), and the dirt storage tank is detachably connected to the machine body through the fixed seat (40 is removable from 10, see Zhang figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner of Zou according to the teachings of Zhang such that it included a handheld dust collection device, the machine body is provided with a fixed seat, the handheld dust collection device is arranged on the fixed seat, and the handheld dust collection device is detachably connected to the machine body through the fixed seat, wherein the dirt storage tank is located at an end of the fixed seat away from the handheld dust collection device, and the dirt storage tank is detachably connected to the machine body through the fixed seat, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
30. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 28, wherein the dirt storage tank includes a channel (flow path through 40, see Zhang fig. 3), and the channel is connected between the dirt storage tank and the handheld dust collection device, the fixed seat is arranged with a through hole, and the channel communicates with the handheld dust collection device through the through hole (air flows into 40, and upward through dust collector 50, see Zhang fig. 3), and
a separator (401) is arranged in the dirt storage tank (401 is in 40, see Zhang fig. 3), and the separator is configured to separate gas, liquid, or solid from garbage inside the dirt storage tank (a separator would be capable of separating at least one of gas, liquid, and solid from garbage inside the dirt storage tank, see Zhang fig. 3).
33. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 28, wherein the machine body includes a support seat of the dirt storage tank (40 is supported on 10, see Zhang figs. 1-4), and the dirt storage tank is arranged on the machine body through the support seat of the dirt storage tank (40 is supported on 10, see Zhang figs. 1-4), and the support seat of the dirt storage tank is rotatably connected to the machine body (Neither of Zou nor Zhang specify the precise nature of the connection, but a linear insertion motion is capable of being expressed as a rotation relative to some other object or would be capable of having at least a partial rotational component when seating the tanks. Consequently, Zou and Zhang teach a tank capable of being rotatably connected to the machine body).
35. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 28, but does not specifically teach that the machine body includes a first locking structure, the first locking structure being configured to lock the handheld dust collection device on the machine body, and/or the machine body includes a second locking structure, the second locking structure being configured to lock the dirt storage tank on the machine body, and the handheld dust collection device includes an attachment component, the attachment component includes one or more of a mite removal brush, a flat brush, a hair brush, a pet brush, a hose, and the attachment component is detachably connected to the handheld dust collection device.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
One of ordinary skill in the vacuum arts would infer that although neither Zou nor Zhang teach locking structures configured to lock the handheld dust collection device and dirt storage tank to the machine body, the absence of such locking structures would make it difficult to use the device as described, because an unsecured dust collection device that easily fell off a vacuum during normal use would not be useful for vacuuming tasks. Similarly, a dirt separator that was not secured in some way to the machine body would not be expected to effectively separate dirt, as it either would not have an adequately sealed connection with a suction inlet and vacuum source to maintain a useful level of suction or would be prone to falling at inopportune times and spilling garbage on recently cleaned surfaces. Similarly, one of ordinary skill would be familiar with the practice of providing a variety of accessories for use with a handheld dust collector beyond the simple tube (90) taught by Zhang (Zhang fig. 6), and would infer that the invention was intended to be used with such accessories.
Consequently, although neither of Zou nor Zhang explicitly teach that the machine body includes a first locking structure, the first locking structure being configured to lock the handheld dust collection device on the machine body, and/or the machine body includes a second locking structure, the second locking structure being configured to lock the dirt storage tank on the machine body, and the handheld dust collection device includes an attachment component, the attachment component includes one or more of a mite removal brush, a flat brush, a hair brush, a pet brush, a hose, and the attachment component is detachably connected to the handheld dust collection device, the inclusion of such elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the references implicitly suggest the presence of such elements.
37. Zou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 28, wherein the machine body is rod-shaped (see Zou fig. 1), and a cross-sectional area of the fixed seat along a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the machine body, a cross-sectional area of the handheld dust collection device along the direction perpendicular to the length direction of the machine body, and a cross-sectional area of the dirt storage tank along the direction perpendicular to the length direction of the machine are greater than a maximum cross- sectional area of the machine body along the direction perpendicular to the length direction of the machine body (the bodies of each of the elements of both Zou and Chang are longer/taller than they are wide, see Zou fig. 1 and Zhang fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (KR 102018521 B1), Ni (CN 108903784 A), Chen (CN 113197523 A), and Liao et al. (CN 109199223 A) teach relevant aspects of cleaning devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights