DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 May 2025.
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 air guide surface with all points along the longitudinal length of air guide surface being lower than points along the corresponding length of the portion of the curved portion (claim 14; see additional discussion under 35 U.S.C. 112 below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation that the air guide surface has a longitudinal length corresponding to a length of a portion of the curved portion with all points along the longitudinal length of air guide surface lower than points along the corresponding length of the
PNG
media_image1.png
248
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
portion of the curved portion lacks written support in the original application. Additionally, the drawings to contradict the limitation because there is a portion along the length of the air guide surface that is clearly above the curved portion, as shown here with portion X being higher than the corresponding point on the curved portion along the longitudinal length (L) of the air guide surface.
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 14, as well as claims 15-19 depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14:
As discussed supra, there is no support for how the air guide surface has a longitudinal length corresponding to a length of a portion of the curved portion with all points along the longitudinal length of air guide surface lower than points along the corresponding length of the portion of the curved portion. Due to the section shown above with the portion of the length of the air guide surface being higher than the corresponding point along the curved portion, the limitation is only considered to be supported as “all points along a portion of the longitudinal length of air guide surface lower than points along the corresponding length of the portion of the curved portion”, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Additionally, it is unclear how the air guide surface has a longitudinal length corresponding to a length of a portion of the curved portion because the respective lengths extend in different directions. The “length”, commonly defined as the longest dimension of an object, of the air guide surface extends in the direction (L) shown above, whereas the length of the curved surface extends in a direction perpendicular to length (L) along the longest dimension of the curved surface. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the air guide surface has a longitudinal length corresponding to a width of a portion of the curved portion, both extending parallel to one another in a front-to-back direction (L) as shown above, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The term “lower” is also somewhat unclear, as there is no previous claim limitation defining an upward or downward direction, wherein the respective orientation is variable relative to the overall orientation of the claimed head (i.e. a “lower” surface would become an upper surface if the head were inverted). As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define the “lower” points as being at a lower elevation (closer to a floor surface) than points on the curved portion when the cleaner head is on a surface to-be-cleaned in an orientation that the brush contacts the surface, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Finally, the limitation that “all points along the longitudinal length of air guide surface are lower than points along the corresponding length of the portion of the curved portion” is unclear because it does not clarify which points on the curved portion the “all points” of the air guide portion are lower than (i.e. the limitation may read on all points on the air guide surface being lower than some points along the length of the curved portion, or all points on the air guide portion being lower than corresponding points on the curved portion at the same distance along the length (L) of the air guide surface).
To summarize all of the interpretations of the portion of claim 14 that is considered to be unclear, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define “the air guide surface has a longitudinal length corresponding to a width of a portion of the curved portion, and all points along a portion of the longitudinal length of air guide surface are lower (at an elevation closer to the surface to-be-cleaned when in an orientation with the brush head on the surface such that the brush contacts the surface) than corresponding points on the curved portion at the same position along the length (L) of the air guide surface”, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (7,171,723).
PNG
media_image2.png
197
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi discloses a cleaner head comprising: a brush (10), a case having an interior (3) in which the brush is rotatably disposed such that, when the brush is rotated while the cleaner head is on a surface to-be cleaned and a suction force is provided to the cleaner head, material on the surface to-be-cleaned is moved by the brush and suctioned into the case, the case including; a main case including a curved portion (5) over the brush and having a shape corresponding to that of the brush, and a side case (14) on a side surface of the main case, and having an air guide surface (external edges on upper, front facing the wall as shown here and lower surfaces, along which air will flow when positioned as shown) with a portion of the air guide surface formed on an upper front surface of the side case and a portion of the air guide surface formed on a lower front surface below a side end portion of the curved portion such that the air guide surface and the side end portion together form a step (shown at A), which together with the front and side wall surfaces provides an air passage through which air flows from above the case toward the surface to-be-cleaned by the suction force to scatter material on the surface to-be-cleaned.
Regarding the new/amended limitations of claim 14:
Regarding the limitation regarding the shielding surface, as previously claimed as claim 15, Kobayashi further discloses that the case further includes: a shielding surface (7 or 7d in Figs. 14-17) extending from the front of the curved portion and extending further forward than an outer circumferential surface of the brush.
Regarding the new limitations relating to the points on the air guide surface, Kobayashi further discloses that (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above regarding interpretation of this clause), the air guide surface has a longitudinal length (L) corresponding to a width (W) of a portion of the curved portion, and all points along a portion of the longitudinal length of air guide surface are lower (at an elevation closer to the surface to-be-cleaned when in an orientation with the brush head on the surface such that the brush contacts the surface) than corresponding points on the curved portion at the same position along the length (L) of the air guide surface, whether the curved surface is in the position of Fig. 3 or Fig. 8.
PNG
media_image3.png
395
922
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The air guide surface extends laterally further than a side end portion of the curved portion and the curved portion extends further forward than an outer front surface of the side case (as seen in Fig. 1).
Including the limitation of previous claim 19, the case of Kobayashi is configured such that, when the cleaner head is on the surface to-be-cleaned and in a corner including a front wall surface and a side wall surface, and the shielding surface contacts the front wall surface and a side surface of the side case contacts the side wall surface (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above), and the suction force is provided to the cleaner head, the step, the front wall surface, and the side wall surface together form an air passage that will allow air to flow from above the case toward the surface to-be- cleaned by the suction force to scatter material on the surface to- be-cleaned.
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 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (7,171,723) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Sepke (5,475,893).
PNG
media_image4.png
146
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi fails to disclose bristles on a bottom edge of the side case. Sepke discloses a side sweeping brush for a vacuum head, similar to Kobayashi’s, for sweeping along the edges of floor surfaces along a wall (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar brush to at least one of the lateral sides of cleaner head of Kobayashi, to provide the same function of brushing along corners of the floor for improved cleaning, wherein the corresponding location of the brush and supporting structure of Sepke, when added to Kobayashi, would be on an outermost portion of the head, which would be on/in the side case (14) of Kobayashi or between the side case and main case and spaced apart by a predetermined distance from an edge of the bottom surface of the side case (as shown here in annotated Fig. 2, with the brush X and supporting structure Y of Sepke positioned in nearly identical location relative to the main case of Kobayashi, with Sepke also clearly positioning the bristles a predetermined distance from an edge of the bottom surface of the side case), such that the bristles and the bottom surface of the side case will form a lower step (at tip of arrow X) and are thereby configured such that, when the cleaner head is on the surface to-be cleaned and in a corner with a side surface of the side case contacting a side wall surface forming the corner and the suction force is provided to the cleaner head, the bristles and the bottom surface of the side case, together with the side wall surface and the surface to-be-cleaned, will form a lower air passage through which air flows from outside the case to the corner by the suction force (in the same manner as the disclosed invention) .
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kobayashi and Sepke, as discussed supra, will further provide the side case with a lower side step portion (shown above at Z, with a step between the outer side case 14 and the brush structure of Sepke and/or the curvature of the lower corner of side case 14 of Kobayashi shown in the drawings) on a lower end of the side surface of the side case and configured such that, when the cleaner head is on the surface to-be cleaned and in the corner with the side surface of the side case contacting the side wall surface and the suction force is provided to the cleaner head, the lower side step portion, together with the side wall surface and the surface to- be-cleaned, form a sub lower air passage on one side of the lower air passage through which air flows from outside of the case to the corner by the suction force.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kobayashi and Sepke, as discussed supra, will further provide the side case with a side step portion formed along a circumference of a side surface of the side case (considered to be the same step Z disclosed in claim 17), such that, when the cleaner head is on the surface to-be-cleaned and in a corner with the side surface of the side case contacting a side wall surface forming the corner and the suction force is provided to the cleaner head, the side step portion, together with the side wall surface, form a sub air passage (understood to be the same sub air passage as set forth in claim 17) through which air flows from outside of the case to the corner by the suction force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the Kobayashi reference does not read on the claimed structure, as amended, suggesting that the structure of Kobayashi does not read on the new limitations regarding “all points along the longitudinal length of air guide surface are lower than points along the corresponding length of the portion of the curved portion”. However, the applicant does not provide any explanation of how or why Kobayashi does not meet the limitations, whereas the examiner has explained how Kobayashi does read on the new limitation of the claim. Additionally, the applicant suggests that Kobayashi fails to read on the last clause of claim 14, but again fails to provide any explanation of how or why Kobayashi does not meet the limitation. Again, the examiner relies on the area A, as indicated in the annotated Fig. 1 above, as reading on the claimed air passage formed by the step, the front wall surface, and the side wall surface, which will allow air to flow from above the case toward the surface to-be-cleaned by the suction force and to scatter material on the surface to- be-cleaned. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections, as previously applied and addressed above in relation to the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Farmer (4,198,727), Vystrcil et al. (6,514,356) and Hato et al. (2007/0113373) disclose cleaner heads having similar structure and function as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 15 May 2026
Prosecution Insights