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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 17,19-23,25-30 and 32-36 are pending. Claims 18, 24, 31 are canceled. Claims 17, 19-21, 23, 26-30, 32-36 are currently amended.
The drawings filed 05/18/2026 has been accepted.
Claim Objections
In claim 26, consider using --first flexible fin-- and --second flexible fin-- to be consistent with the terminology in claim 25, on which claim 26 is dependent. Also consider -- extend from the distal end of the second brush roll to a proximal end of the second brush roll--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 17, 19 is/are rejected is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1) and Cornelissen-466 (DE 102017102466 A1)
With respect to claim 17, Cornelisen-654 discloses A floor nozzle assembly for a vacuum cleaner, the assembly comprising: a housing (2, fig. 1; [0017]); a central drive pivotably mounted within the housing, such that the central drive is configured to move with pivotal motion relative to the housing (central drive as assembly of 9 and 10, fig. 1, [0019, 0020], the central drive pivots as described in [0018] at an end facing from drive shaft 8, fig. 1, thus pivots within housing), a first brush roll on a first side of the central drive (first brush roll, 16, fig. 1; left side; [0023]); and a second brush roll on a second side of the central drive (second brush roll, 16, fig. 1; left side; [0023]); wherein the housing extends over the first and the second brush rolls and the central drive (see how fig. 1 is cut out to show the brush rolls and central drive in suction chamber 5, [0017-0018] describe the section chamber and housing, with how the housing defines a channel leading to the suction chamber); and wherein a first gap is defined between the housing and a distal end of the first brush roll and a second gap is defined between the housing and a distal end of the second brush roll so as to define airflow paths between the housing respective distal ends of the first and second brush rolls (on each of the brush rolls, there is a free [distal] end with a closing cap 22, fig. 1, which is shown with a gap to the rest of the housing, and would therefore provide an air flow path between by the nature of having a gap [therefore, air can flow], [0025-0026]; the left side of fig. 1 shows clearly the free end of the first brush roll, and it is also shown in the right side of fig. 1 with the second brush roll). Cornelisen-654 does not explicitly disclose a wheel connected to the central drive such that the wheel moves with the pivotal motion of the central drive relative to the housing, the wheel positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the first and second brush rolls above the floor surface during use.
Sommer, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a skid connected to the central drive such that the skid moves with the pivotal motion of the central drive relative to the housing (skid 24, fig. 2 connected to a central drive 12, fig. 2; [0036,0037], see also central drive 12 in fig. 1), the skid positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the first and second brush rolls above the floor surface during use ([0017]). Sommer teaches that this arrangement reduces wear on the brush and tearing of carpet ([0004]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 with the skid of Sommer, for the purpose of reducing wear of the brush roller and tearing of carpet by adjusting the brush height.
As for the usage of a roller/wheel instead of a skid, Sommer provides for use of a large area roller instead of a large area skid ([0017]). Cornelissen-466, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of usage of a roller/ support wheel instead of a skid as a floor contact mechanism ([0011], see wheel 16, figs. 4a, 4b, [0031-0032]).
MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Cornelisen-654, and have substituted the skid taught by Sommer, for a roller/wheel, as a simple substitution with a predictable results of a roller contact the ground.
With respect to claim 19, Cornelisen-654 discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, and further discloses a motor operably connected to the central drive (motor 6, fig. 1; [0018, 0023], which is a motor as it generates rotational motion through power transmission; [0017] describes electric drive)
Claim(s) 20-22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1), in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1) and Cornelissen-466 (DE 102017102466 A1) and further in view of Conrad (US 20190298124 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Cornelisen-654 discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, and further discloses a ridge of a second radial height (see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024] on each of the two brush rolls; the ridge would have a define second radial height by physical existence) however does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and the second brush rolls comprises a flexible fin of a first radial height on an exterior surface of the brush roll, and a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, the ridge extending parallel to the flexible fin.
Conrad, in the same filed of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a flexible fin of a first radial height on an exterior surface of the brush roll (fin 1200a, fig. 10; is flexible and can be deformed as in [0297]; see also 1200 in fig. 3, furthermore in [0284], the fins are made of flexible material such as rubber or nylon), and a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, the ridge extending parallel to the flexible fin (ridge as bristles 1100, fig. 10; [0297], the disclosure allows the bristles to be either shorter or longer than the flap 1200a in [0300], parallel arrangement shown in fig. 3) Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]),
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 with the ridge and fin arrangement of Conrad, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles. Regarding specifically the arrangement of a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, as noted above, Conrad provides that the flap can be longer or shorter than the bristles ([0300]). Conrad further teaches that the height of the blocking member can affect the embedding and inward migration of hair ([0071,0073]). MPEP 2141 provides that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Given that Conrad provides for a finite number of solutions to a problem of choosing the relative heights of a fin (flaps) and a ridge (bristles), and teaches that the height can affect the embedding and inward migration of hair, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when reading Conrad, would find that a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (making either the fin and ridge of a same height, the fin taller than the ridge, or the ridge taller than the fin). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found the claimed arrangement of a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, to have been obvious from the finite number of possible arrangements taught by Conrad, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 21, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, and further teaches the ridge coil around the first brush roll and around the second brush roll (Cornelisen-654, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]) however does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible fin coil around the first brush roll and around the second brush roll
Conrad further teaches of wherein the fin coils around the brush roll (Conrad see fin 1200a, fig. 10; [0297]; see also 1200 in fig. 3). Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 coiled fin arrangement of Conrad, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles, which would result in a flexible fin coiling around the first and second cylindrical brush roll in Cornelisen-654.
With respect to claim 22, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, and further teaches wherein the ridge comprises a row of bristles (Cornelisen-654, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]; the ridge is a row of bristles).
With respect to claim 25, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, and further teaches wherein the flexible fin is a first flexible fin (the flexible fin is a first flexible fin as explained in the rejection of claim 20 above), however does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first and second brush rolls comprises a second flexible fin and a second ridge extending parallel to the second flexible fin, and wherein the second flexible fin has a third radial height and the second ridge has a fourth radial height that is smaller than the third radial height. However, Cornelisen-654 further discloses of a second ridge with a [fourth] radial height (as noted in the rejection of claim 20 above, there are two spiral bristles [ridge] 19 in each of the brush rolls, fig. 1; [0024]; the ridges have a heigh by their physical nature).
Conrad further teaches of providing a set of two fins and ridges (see fig. 10 of Conrad, there are also two sets of fins 1200a and ridges as bristles 1100, that separately spiral around the roll; [0297]; parallel arrangement shown in fig. 3). Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]), and that the bristles to be either shorter or longer than the flap (as in [0300]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 with the second ridge and second fin arrangement of Conrad, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles. Regarding specifically the arrangement of a second ridge of a fourth radial height less than the third radial height, as noted above, Conrad provides that the flap can be longer or shorter than the bristles ([0300]). Conrad further teaches that the height of the blocking member can affect the embedding and inward migration of hair ([0071,0073]). MPEP 2141 provides that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Given that Conrad provides for a finite number of solutions to a problem of choosing the relative heights of a fin (flaps) and a ridge (bristles), and teaches that the height can affect the embedding and inward migration of hair, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when reading Conrad, would find that a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (making either the fin and ridge of a same height, the fin taller than the ridge, or the ridge taller than the fin). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found the claimed arrangement of a second ridge of a fourth radial height less than the third radial height, to have been obvious from the finite number of possible arrangements taught by Conrad, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 26, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25 above, and further teaches the first ridge spiral around a circumference of the first cylindrical brush roll and extend from the distal end of the first brush roll to a proximal end of the first brush roll, wherein the second ridge spiral around a circumference of the second brush roll and extend from the proximal end of the second brush roll to a distal end of the second brush roll (Cornelisen-654, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]) however does not explicitly teach wherein the first fin spiral around a circumference of the first cylindrical brush roll and extend from the distal end of the first brush roll to the second a proximal end of the first brush roll, and wherein the second fin spiral around a circumference of the second brush roll and extend from the proximal end to a distal end of the second brush roll.
Conrad further teaches of wherein the first and second fin coils around the brush roll from two ends of the brush roll (Conrad see two fins fin 1200a, fig. 10; [0297]; see also 1200 in fig. 3). Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 two fin spiraling arrangement of Conrad, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles, which would result in the first and second flexible fins spiraling around the first and second cylindrical brush roll in Cornelisen-654, from a first end to a second end.
With respect to claim 27, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25 above, and further teaches wherein the first flexible fin is radially taller than the first ridge and the second flexible fin is radially taller than the second ridge (this is addressed by the limitation of “a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height [of the fin]” in the rejection of claim 20 above, and “the second ridge has a fourth radial height that is smaller than the third radial height [of the second fin] in the rejection of claim 25 above).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1) view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1) Cornelissen-466 (DE 102017102466 A1), and Conrad (US 20190298124 A1) and further in view of Yuen (DE 202018101345 U1)
With respect to claim 23, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, and however does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible fin comprises a polymeric material and wherein the first and second brush rolls comprise a felt material. Conrad further teaches wherein the flexible fin comprises a polymeric material (Conrad, [0284], the fins are made of flexible material such as rubber or nylon, both rubber and nylon are polymeric materials). Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]),
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 such that the flexible fin comprises a polymeric material, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles with a fin made of a flexible material.
Yuen, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners teaches of a brush roll comprising a felt material (brush strips 1030a, 1040a and 1060a, fig. 10a, [0045], are covered with felt as in [0010]). Yuen teaches that this is suitable for cleaning hard floors, sweep large amounts of debris, and are economic ([0009-0010]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 such that the first and second brush rolls comprise a felt material, applying the teachings of Yuen, for a brush that is suitable for cleaning hard floors, and that can sweep large amounts of debris, and are also economic.
Claim(s) 28-29, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1) and Cornelissen-466 (DE 102017102466 A1) and further in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A).
With respect to claim 28, Cornelisen-654, discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the housing defines an [air]outlet (Cornelisen-654, 3, fig. 1; [0017]). however, does not explicitly disclose wherein a backbone connected to the housing, the backbone defining an air conduit, wherein the housing defines an outlet in communication with the air conduit of the backbone.
Erickson, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a backbone connected to the housing (backbone at 28, fig. 1; col 2 lines 31-47, coupled via a pivot joint 26, fig. 1), the backbone defining an air conduit (the backbone is an extension wand coupled to a suction hose [thus providing an air conduit] col 2 lines 31-47), wherein there is an outlet in communication with the air conduit of the backbone (air outlet at 37 and 39, fig. 2; col 2 lines 55-col 3 line 2). Erickson teaches that providing this pivot joint allows cleaning non planar surfaces (col 4 lines 7-26), increasing the tool utility (col 2 lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 with the backbone of Erickson, connected to the outlet of Cornelisen-654 defined by the housing, for cleaning non-planar surfaces, thus increasing utility.
With respect to claim 29, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 28 above, however does not explicitly teach a first wheel adjacent a first side backbone where it connects to the housing and a second wheel adjacent to an opposite second side of the backbone where it connects to the housing.
Erickson further teaches of a first wheel on a first side of the pivot joint [where the backbone connects to the housing as addressed in the rejection of claim 28] and a second wheel on an opposite second side of the backbone where it connects to the housing (two wheels 64, fig. 2, part/on each side of pivot joint 26, col 4 lines 26-40). Erickson teaches that this this absorbs the downward force of the user, col 4 lines 26-40) and with the articulation, increases the tool utility (col 2 lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 with wheel arrangement of Erickson for absorbing the downward force of the user, and increasing utility with the articulated arrangement.
With respect to claim 32, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29 above, further comprising a motor operably connected to the central drive and configured to rotate the first and second brush rolls (Cornelisen-654, motor 6, fig. 1; [0018, 0023], which is a motor as it generates rotational motion through power transmission; [0017] describes electric drive).
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1) Cornelissen-466 (DE 102017102466 A1) and Erickson (US 5123141 A), and further in view of Conrad (US 20190298124 A1).
With respect to claim 33, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 17 above, and further teaches a ridge of a second radial height (Cornelisen-654, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024] on each of the two brush rolls; the ridge would have a define second radial height by physical existence) however does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and the second brush rolls comprises a flexible fin of a first radial height on an exterior surface of the brush roll, and a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, the ridge extending parallel to the flexible fin.
Conrad, in the same filed of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a flexible fin of a first radial height on an exterior surface of the brush roll (fin 1200a, fig. 10; is flexible and can be deformed as in [0297]; see also 1200 in fig. 3, furthermore in [0284], the fins are made of flexible material such as rubber or nylon), and a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, the ridge extending parallel to the flexible fin (ridge as bristles 1100, fig. 10; [0297], the disclosure allows the bristles to be either shorter or longer than the flap 1200a in [0300], parallel arrangement shown in fig. 3) Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]),
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 with the ridge and fin arrangement of Conrad, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles. Regarding specifically the arrangement of a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, as noted above, Conrad provides that the flap can be longer or shorter than the bristles ([0300]). Conrad further teaches that the height of the blocking member can affect the embedding and inward migration of hair ([0071,0073]). MPEP 2141 provides that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Given that Conrad provides for a finite number of solutions to a problem of choosing the relative heights of a fin (flaps) and a ridge (bristles), and teaches that the height can affect the embedding and inward migration of hair, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when reading Conrad, would find that a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (making either the fin and ridge of a same height, the fin taller than the ridge, or the ridge taller than the fin). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found the claimed arrangement of a ridge of a second radial height less than the first radial height, to have been obvious from the finite number of possible arrangements taught by Conrad, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 34, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 33 above, and further teaches wherein each of the first and the second brush rolls comprises a ridge, the ridge spiral around the first cylindrical brush roll and around the second cylindrical brush roll (Cornelisen-654, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]) however does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible fin spiral around the first cylindrical brush roll and around the second cylindrical brush roll. Conrad, in the same filed of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a flexible fin that spirals around the brush roll (fin 1200a, fig. 10; is flexible and can be deformed as in [0297]; see also 1200 in fig. 3, furthermore in [0284], the fins are made of flexible material such as rubber or nylon). Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]),
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 with the spiral fin arrangement of Conrad, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles.
With respect to claim 35, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 34 above, and further teaches wherein the ridge comprises a row of bristles (Cornelisen-654, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]; the ridge is a row of bristles).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1) Cornelissen-466 (DE 102017102466 A1), Erickson (US 5123141 A), and Conrad (US 20190298124 A1) and further in view of Yuen (DE 202018101345 U1)
With respect to claim 36, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible fin comprises a polymeric material and wherein the first and second brush rolls comprise a felt material. Conrad further teaches wherein the flexible fin comprises a polymeric material (Conrad, [0284], the fins are made of flexible material such as rubber or nylon, both rubber and nylon are polymeric materials). Conrad teaches that this arrangement prevents hair from embedding between bristles by drawing the hair out ([0295]),
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first and second brush rolls Cornelisen-654 such that the flexible fin comprises a polymeric material, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles with a fin made of a flexible material.
Yuen, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners teaches of a brush roll comprising a felt material (brush strips 1030a, 1040a and 1060a, fig. 10a, [0045], are covered with felt as in [0010]). Yuen teaches that this is suitable for cleaning hard floors, sweep large amounts of debris, and are economic ([0009-0010]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 such that the first and second brush rolls comprise a felt material, applying the teachings of Yuen, for a brush that is suitable for cleaning hard floors, and that can sweep large amounts of debris, and are also economic.
First ground of rejection for claim 30 incorporating Thorne (US 20200367711 A1)
Thorne currently qualifies as prior art under both 35 USC 102(a)(1) because it was published before the earliest possible effective filing date of 06/09/2021, which may possibly be overcome by correcting priority to claim benefit of to provisional app 63/116,230, if the provisional app provides written description support for the claim (which may require a petition and the applicant may wish to particularly point out how the provisional app supports the claim), or by affidavit/declaration and 35 USC 102(a)(2), which may be overcome by affidavit/declaration. An affidavit/declaration pursuant to MPEP 717, to show the disclosure of Thorne, regarding the specific subject matter relied upon in the rejection, is obtained directly/indirectly from the instant inventor, may be used to overcome the applicability of Thorne as prior art under either 35 USC 102(a)(1), or 35 USC 102(a)(2), as there is a second inventor in the Thorne reference, and the second inventor may have invented the specific subject matter relied upon in the rejection.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1) Cornelissen-466 (DE 102017102466 A1), and Erickson (US 5123141 A), and further in view of Thorne (US 20200367711 A1).
With respect to claim 30, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29 above, however does not explicitly teach a first outlet conduit extending from a rear of the housing adjacent the first brush roll and extending through the first wheel to the air conduit of the backbone, and a second outlet conduit extending from the rear of the housing adjacent the second brush roll and extending through the second wheel to the air conduit of the backbone.
Throne, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a first outlet conduit extending from a rear of the housing adjacent the first brush roll and extending through the first wheel (outlet conduit as 418, fig. 5; [0032], extends through wheels 404 fig. 4, connects at rear of housing 402) and a second outlet conduit extending from the rear of the housing adjacent the second brush roll and extending through the second wheel (as seen in figs 4-5, the outlet conduit 418 and wheel 404 is disposed on both sides; and [0032] provides for a plurality of wheels and fluid pathways and conduits to a suction motor). Throne teaches that this is part of an air flow pattern where agitator is provided with a gap which allows debris to migrate off the agitator and fall off into the air flow through the head, with the two agitators similar (through gap at 434, fig. 4, [0039,0041]; it is also noted that there is a drive system 424, figs. 4 between the two agitators, [0042]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 with the outlet conduits through the wheels, as taught by Thorne, to allow air flow through the cleaning head and keep the agitator clean of fibrous debris in a cleaning head with a center drive. A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading Throne would connect the outlet conduits taught by Throne to the air conduit of the backbone of modified Cornelisen-654 to convey the debris away [to a suction motor or hose - previously explained in the rejection of claim 28 using Erickson].
Second ground of rejection for claim 30 incorporating Steiner (US 20020124346 A1) and Moloney (US 20130305485 A1).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen-654 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A), and further in view of Steiner (US 20020124346 A1) and Moloney (US 20130305485 A1).
With respect to claim 30, Cornelisen-654, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29 above, however does not explicitly teach a first outlet conduit extending from a rear of the housing adjacent the first brush roll and extending through the first wheel to the air conduit of the backbone, and a second outlet conduit extending from the rear of the housing adjacent the second brush roll and extending through the second wheel to the air conduit of the backbone.
Steiner, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a first outlet conduit extending from a rear of the housing adjacent the first brush roll to the air conduit of the backbone (first outlet conduit 165, fig. 9, 11; [0063], extends to a rear outlet/conduit of a backbone at 154, fig. 9, 11; [0065], extends from a rear of housing 150, fig. 11; [0064]; brush is 54 fig. 6; [0057]), and a second outlet conduit extending from the rear of the housing adjacent the second brush roll to the air conduit of the backbone (second outlet conduit 166, fig. 9, 11; [0063], extends to a rear outlet/conduit of a backbone at 154, fig. 9, 11; [0065]; extends from a rear of housing 150, fig. 11; [0064]; brush is 56 fig. 6; [0057]). Steiner further teaches of two wheels adjacent to the conduits (127, fig. 9; [0061]) Steiner teaches that this splits conduit arrangement evenly distributes nozzle air flow ([0015]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 with two separate outlet conduits of Steiner, to make the air flow even across both sides.
Moloney, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of passing air flow through the wheel of the vacuum cleaner (castor wheel 9 fig. 2, and using a right-angle duct 23, fig. 8; [0057,0061,0067]). Moloney teaches that this arrangement is compact ([0064]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornelisen-654 such that the first outlet conduit [on one side of the vacuum cleaner] passes through the first wheel to the air conduit of the backbone and second outlet conduit [on a second side of the vacuum cleaner] passes through the second wheel to the air conduit of the backbone by applying the teachings of Moloney, for a compact arrangement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues (response page 9-10), that the references do not disclose the new feature of a wheel as arranged in instant claim 17. While the examiner agrees that the drawings of Sommer do not provide for a wheel as arranged, as provided in the interview summary dated 05/08/2026, further consideration of Sommer is necessary. After review of Sommer, the examiner notes that the reference provides for the use of a wheel (roller) instead of a skid mounted to the central drive, and pivots with the central drive. This reduces wear and tear of the carpet. The use of a wheel as a substitute for a skid is further supported by Cornelissen-466.
No specific arguments were directed to the dependent claims.
Conclusion
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights