DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 and Sub-species ID (claims 1-6, 21-23 and 26-33) in the reply filed on 29 June 2026 is acknowledged.
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 33 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.
Claim 33 recites “an interior support coupled to the support body proximate to the tiller” (emphasis added); it is not clear what the tiller refers to. For prior art examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 33 as reciting “an interior support coupled to the support body proximate to the roller”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20100236010 A1) in view of Bassett (US 20110214245 A1: also US 8,806,703 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a cleaning apparatus (Fig.1-2), comprising:
a housing (not shown; inherent feature of vacuum cleaner as disclosed in ¶21);
a suction assembly (40);
a fluid delivery system (46), the fluid delivery system having a supply tank for housing a liquid (¶21, note “a remote fluid source 46, preferably pressurized, such as one contained in a carpet extractor or vacuum cleaner or a separate fluid reservoir”);
a roller assembly (10) selectively coupled to the housing via an accessory hose (¶21, note “suction outlet 18 is adapted for removable connection to a remote suction source 40 by attaching a conventional vacuum hose (not shown) thereto in a known manner”); and
the roller assembly including:
a support body (12) having at least one guide (Fig.2, 22);
a roller (14) rotatably coupled to the support body, wherein the at least one guide follows a curvature of the roller (Fig.2, note at least a portion of 22 on left and right side of roller 14), and wherein spacing between the at least one guide and a surface of the roller defines at least one inlet for providing a vacuum effect along the surface of the roller (24; ¶23 note “a first working air path (not shown) extends from the bottom opening 24, through the nozzle inlet 32, through the conduit 36, through the nozzle outlet 34, through the turbine conduit 38, and to the conventional vacuum hose through the suction outlet 18”), the at least one inlet being in fluid communication with the suction assembly via at least one passage extending through the support body (¶23, note “a first working air path (not shown) extends from the bottom opening 24, through the nozzle inlet 32, through the conduit 36, through the nozzle outlet 34, through the turbine conduit 38, and to the conventional vacuum hose through the suction outlet 18”); and
a fluid delivery assembly (20/66/68/70/72/74) defining an outlet (68) proximate the roller, wherein the outlet is in fluid communication with the fluid delivery system via a conduit (66/70/72/74) that extends through the support body (Fig.2).
Johnson does not explicitly teach the suction assembly being disposed within the housing; the fluid delivery system being disposed within the housing; a wand coupled to the housing via the accessory hose; the at least one passage extending through the wand; the conduit extends through the wand.
Bassett teaches a cleaning apparatus (Fig.1-4), the cleaning apparatus including a housing (10), a suction assembly (16) being disposed within the housing; a fluid delivery system (18) being disposed within the housing; a wand (13) coupled to the housing via an accessory hose (12); a roller assembly (11) selectively coupled to the wand (via port 125); at least one passage extending through the wand (note Fig.1 arrows representing suction flow from 14/13/12/15/16/17); a conduit (20) extends through the wand (Fig.1). This configuration provides a vacuum cleaning apparatus including a fluid delivery conduit that is hidden from view (¶42) which has the advantage of avoiding potential tripping hazards of a user with said conduit and an overall compact design.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaning apparatus of Johnson by having the suction assembly being disposed within the housing; the fluid delivery system being disposed within the housing; a wand coupled to the housing via the accessory hose; the at least one passage extending through the wand; the conduit extends through the wand based on the teachings of Bassett because this configuration provides a vacuum cleaning apparatus including a fluid delivery conduit that is hidden from view (¶42) which has the advantage of avoiding potential tripping hazards of a user with said conduit and an overall compact design.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson and Bassett further teach the at least one inlet includes a first inlet spaced from a second inlet (Johnson Fig.2, note first and second inlets defined between roller 14 and guide 22 on the left side and between roller 14 and guide 22 on the right side).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson and Bassett further teach the first inlet is defined in a fore position relative to the roller and the second inlet is defined in an aft position relative to the roller (Johnson Fig.2, note first and second inlets defined between roller 14 and guide 22 on the left side and between roller 14 and guide 22 on the right side; positions defined on a left to right direction).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson and Bassett further teach the at least one guide includes a first arcuate guide and a second arcuate guide extending in opposing directions, and wherein the first and second inlets are defined between the first and second arcuate guides of the support body and the surface of the roller, respectively (Johnson Fig.2, note at least a portion of 22 on left and right side of roller 14 include said arcuate guides extending in opposing directions).
Regarding claim 28, Johnson and Bassett further teach the first inlet is defined in a fore position relative to the roller and the second inlet is defined in an aft position relative to the roller (Johnson Fig.2, note first and second inlets defined between roller 14 and guide 22 on the left side and between roller 14 and guide 22 on the right side; positions defined on a left to right direction).
Regarding claim 32, Johnson and Bassett further teach a fluid directing feature disposed within an interior of the support body between the outlet and the surface of the roller to direct the liquid from the outlet to the surface of the roller (Johnson Fig.2, note shape and direction of 68).
Claim(s) 5, 21-22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Bassett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knopow et al – hereafter Knopow – (US 20120304405 A1; also US 8,984,697 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson and Bassett teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teach the roller includes a first portion constructed of a first material (Johnson Fig.2, 90) and a second portion constructed of a second material (Johnson Fig.2, 88), however, do not explicitly teach the first material has a greater surface tackiness than the second material for capturing at least one of lint and hair.
Knopow teaches a surface cleaning device for picking up dust, lint, and other debris from a variety of surfaces (¶2). Knopow further teaches the surface cleaning device including a roller (Fig.16-18, 214) having a first portion constructed of a first material (Fig.18, 274) and a second portion constructed of a second material (Fig.18, 272 and “276”, note “276” is referred in ¶91 as 270); the first material has a greater surface tackiness than the second material for capturing at least one of lint and hair (¶83/91). Said configuration allows providing a tacky surface that can be periodically refreshed by a user (¶2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cleaning apparatus of Johnson and Bassett by having the first material has a greater surface tackiness than the second material for capturing at least one of lint and hair based on the teachings of Knopow because this would allow providing a tacky surface that can be periodically refreshed by a user.
Regarding claim 21, Johnson, Bassett and Knopow further teach the liquid is configured to be dispensed onto the surface of the roller via the outlet (Johnson Fig.2) which, consequently, reduces the surface tackiness of the first material to dislodge and collect debris materials with the vacuum effect (note that providing a liquid from Johnson’s disclosure to a tacky gel material as disclosed by Knopow would result in the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 22, Johnson, Bassett and Knopow further teach the first portion and the second portion are arranged in a repeating pattern along a longitudinal extent of the roller (Knopow Fig.16-18).
Regarding claim 26, Johnson, Bassett and Knopow further teach the first material is at least one of a silicone material (Knopow ¶70, note “many silicones and polyurethanes work well”) and a rubber material and the second material is a plastic material (Knopow ¶91, note “roller 214 includes a base or substrate layer 270, which may be plastic”).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Bassett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Espin et al – hereafter Espin – (WO 2022194631 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Johnson and Bassett teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, do not explicitly teach a directional removal feature coupled to an inner surface of the at least one guide.
Espin teaches a suction head configured to be applied in a vacuum cleaner (Fig.1-11). Espin further teaches a directional removal feature (32/39) coupled to an inner surface of the at least one guide (34/35); this configuration promotes movement of dirt and liquid drops towards an outlet opening of the suction head (page 10 line 26-35).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cleaning device of Johnson and Bassett by having a directional removal feature coupled to an inner surface of the at least one guide based on the teachings of Espin because this would promote movement of dirt and liquid drops towards an outlet opening of the roller assembly.
Regarding claim 30, Johnson, Bassett and Espin further teach the directional removal feature defines channels along the at least one guide toward the at least one inlet to form airflow paths (Espin Fig.8-11; page 10 line 26-35).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, Bassett and Espin as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Shikima et al – hereafter Shikima – (JP 2004267723 A).
Regarding claim 31, Johnson, Bassett and Espin teach all the limitations of claim 29, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the directional removal feature includes angled bristle fibers.
Shikima teaches a floor nozzle for a vacuum cleaner for sucking dust attached to a floor surface (machine translation ¶1), the floor nozzle having a directional removal (Fig.4, 13) including angled bristle fibers (machine translation ¶10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cleaning device of Johnson, Bassett and Espin by having the directional removal feature including angled bristle fibers based on the teachings of Shikima because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (directional removal feature of Johnson, Bassett and Espin) for another (directional removal feature of Shikima) to obtain predictable results (directing dirt towards a cleaning apparatus).
Claim(s) 33 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Bassett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Wit – hereafter De – (US 20180289226 A1; also US 10,912,434 B2).
Regarding claim 33, Johnson and Bassett all the limitations of claim 29, see above, and further teach an interior support coupled to the support body proximate to the roller (Johnson Fig.1/2, note 84 in Fig.2 connects to 22 in Fig.1 to allow rotation of roller 14); however, do not explicitly teach bristles coupled to the interior support and configured to engage the surface of the roller.
De teaches a vacuum cleaner including a vacuum cleaner head (¶1; Fig.1-4). De further teaches bristles (71/72/73) coupled to an interior support (via 74) and configured to engage a surface (26/36) of a roller (¶54). This configuration provides a structural element for detritus removal from the roller (¶55).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cleaning device of Johnson and Bassett by having bristles coupled to the interior support and configured to engage the surface of the roller based on the teachings of De because this configuration provides a structural element for detritus removal from the roller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 23 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the second portion defines a grid pattern over the first portion (as in the context of claim 6).
the first portion defines projections and the second portion defines valleys between adjacent projections (as in the context of claim 23).
the roller includes a web feature coupled to the surface, and wherein the web feature is constructed of the second material (as in the context of claim 27).
The closest prior art references (Johnson, Bassett and Knopow) disclose the claimed cleaning apparatus having the roller assembly with the first and second portions/materials (see at least claim 5 rejection above), however, the references are silent with respect to the claimed patterns or surface features of the roller.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights