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 .
Priority
The examiner notes that the current application does not claim priority to provisional app 63/116,230. If the applicant desires to claim the benefit of the provisional app, the applicant is encouraged to review MPEP 211.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are not line drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(b).
The examiner notes the requirement to be a line drawing as provided in 37 CFR 1.84(a) - “(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings”, and that photographs are not normally acceptable - “(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.”
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.
It is noted that the drawings filed in the parent application, 17/531,066, on 09/14/2023 in response to the notice to file corrected application papers dated 07/18/2023, would be acceptable as line 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 “armature” (claim 17, 18, 31), “drive shaft” (claims 17, 19, 32), motor (19, 32), “first gap” (claim 17), “second gap” (claim 17), “semi-smooth coating” (claim 24), “pivot joint” (claims 28, 29) 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 18, 21-24, 26-31, 34-36 have inconsistent preambles with independent claim 17, as claim 17 recites “floor nozzle assembly”, and the noted claims variously recite “floor nozzle” or “brush roll”. Consider amending the preamble to be consistent with that of claim 17, and should the applicant choose “floor nozzle” or ‘brush roll”, the applicant is cautioned that reference is sometimes made to the preamble in the claim body, and the terms in the claim body should have antecedent basis support. The examiner also notes that claim 17 defines a “first brush roll” and a “second brush roll”, therefore a preamble naming “a brush roll” should not be used, unless reference to the first and second brush rolls are deleted in the body of the claims.
In claim 17, consider --wherein the floor nozzle assembly defines a first gap between the housing and a distal end of the first brush roll and a second gap between the housing and a distal end of the second brush roll so as to define airflow paths between the housing and a respective distal end of the first and second brush rolls.--
In claim 18, 31 consider -- further comprising a roller connected to the armature, the roller positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle assembly so as to set a height of the brush roll above the floor surface during use.--
In claim 20, 33, consider -- wherein each of the first and the second brush rolls comprises a flexible fin of a first radial height on [[the]] 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.--.
In claim 21, 34, consider -- wherein the flexible fin and the ridge coil around the first
In claim 24, consider -- The floor nozzle of claim 17, wherein each of the first and second brush rolls has a semi-smooth coating on [[the]] an exterior surface.--
In claim 26, consider --The brush roll of claim 25, wherein the first flexible fin and the first flexible ridge spiral around [[the]] a circumference of the first brush roll and extend from [[the]] a first end to [[the]] a second end of the first brush roll; and wherein the second fin and second ridge spiral around [[the]] a circumference of the second brush roll and extend from [[the]] a first end to [[the]] a second end of the second brush roll.-- (applicant may wish to use the terms “distal end” since it is recited in claim 16, and accordingly use the term “proximal end” as well).
In claim 27, consider -- wherein the first flexible fin is radially taller than the first ridge and the second flexible fin is radially taller than the second ridge--. For claim 27 the examiner also notes that it may be possible to interpret the claim to not be further limiting claims 20 and 25 (see MPEP 608.01(n); 35 USC 112(d)), and it may be worth considering either canceling claim 27 or using the claim to further define a different aspect of the invention.
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 24, 34-35 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.
With respect to claim 24, the claim recites “wherein each of the first and second brush rolls has a semi-smooth coating on the exterior surface”. The term “semi-smooth” renders the claim indefinite as the claim is not clear what would be the nature of being “semi-smooth” or the specifics of being semi-smooth relative to something that is “rough” or “smooth”, and the instant disclosure does not define the nature of being semi-smooth. The nature of being “semi-smooth” is also subjective, as whether something would be considered “rough”, or “semi-smooth” would vary from person to person. The examiner’s best understanding is that “felt” or other similar coatings (such as rubber) is of a semi smooth nature, and will interpret the claim accordingly.
With respect to claim 34, the claim recites the flexible fin and the ridge, for which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret this claim to require the limitations of “wherein each of the first and the second brush rolls comprises a flexible fin and a ridge”, to provide for the necessary antecedent basis and background structure. Claim 35 is rejected as dependent on claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornelisen (DE 102007006654 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Cornelisen discloses A floor nozzle assembly for a vacuum cleaner, the assembly comprising: a housing (2, fig. 1; [0017]); an armature pivotably mounted within the housing (armature as assembly of 9 and 10, fig. 1, [0019, 0020], the armature pivots as described in [0018]), the armature including a drive shaft extending laterally outward from opposite sides of the armature (drive shaft 8, fig. 1, on both sides; [0023]); a first brush roll on a first side of the drive shaft (first brush roll, 16, fig. 1; left side; [0023]); and a second brush roll on a second side of the drive shaft (second brush roll, 16, fig. 1; left side; [0023]); wherein the housing extends over the first and the second brush rolls and the armature (see how fig. 1 is cut out to show the brush rolls and armature in suction chamber 5, [0017-0018] describe the section chamber and housing, with how the housing defines s channel leading to the suction chamber); and wherein the floor nozzle defines a first gap between the housing and a distal end of the first brush roll and a second gap between the housing and a distal end of the second brush roll so as to define airflow paths between the housing and a respective distal end 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 elft 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).
With respect to claim 19, Cornelisen discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, and further discloses a motor operably connected to the drive shaft (motor 6, fig. 1; [0018, 0023], which is a motor as it generates rotational motion through power transmission; [0017] describes electric drive)
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen (DE 102007006654 A1) and further in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Cornelisen discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, however does not explicitly disclose a roller connected to the armature, the roller positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the brush roll above the floor surface during use.
Sommer, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a roller (32, fig. 4b, [0040]) connected to the armature (12, fig. 4a, [0033], indirectly via measuring instrument 26a, fig. 4a, to pivot the armature 12), the roller positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the brush roll above the floor surface during use (engages floor carpet in [0043], then adjusts height of the gearbox [armature] 12, and thus the brush roll in [0014-0016]). 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 with the roller of Sommer, for the purpose of reducing wear of the brush roller and tearing of carpet by adjusting the brush height.
Claim(s) 20-22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen (DE 102007006654 A1) and further in view of Conrad (US 20190298124 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Cornelisen 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 the 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 the 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 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, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, and further teaches the ridge coil around the first cylindrical brush roll and around the second cylindrical brush roll (Cornelisen, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]) however does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible fin coil around the first cylindrical brush roll and around the second cylindrical 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 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.
With respect to claim 22, Cornelisen, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, and further teaches wherein the ridge comprises a row of bristles (Cornelisen, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]; the ridge is a row of bristles).
With respect to claim 25, Cornelisen, 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 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 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, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25 above, and further teaches the first ridge spiral around the first cylindrical brush roll and around the second cylindrical brush roll, wherein the second ridge spiral around the circumference of the second brush roll and extend from the first end to the second end of the second brush roll. (Cornelisen, see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]) however does not explicitly teach wherein the first fin spiral around the first cylindrical brush roll and around the second cylindrical brush roll, and wherein the second fin spiral around the circumference of the second brush roll and extend from the first end to the second 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 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, from a first end to a second end.
With respect to claim 27, Cornelisen, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25 above, and further teaches wherein the first fin is radially taller than the first ridge and the second 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 (DE 102007006654 A1) view of Conrad (US 20190298124 A1) and further in view of Yuen (DE 202018101345 U1)
With respect to claim 23, Cornelisen, 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 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 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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen (DE 102007006654 A1) and further in view of Kitto (US 2085700 A).
With respect to claim 24, Cornelisen, discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and second brush rolls has a semi-smooth coating on the exterior surface.
Kitto, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of wherein each of the first and second brush rolls has a semi-smooth coating on the exterior surface (rubber coating on the outside of a beater element 34 [forming an exterior surface], figs. 11-13, of an agitator, as described in page 2 col 2, lines 14-37, is covered in rubber to reduce noise). Kitto teaches that this reduces noise (page 2 col 2, lines 23-27).
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 such that each of the first and second brush rolls has a semi-smooth coating on the exterior surface, using the teachings of Kitto of providing a rubber covered beater element, for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim(s) 28-29, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen (DE 102007006654 A1) and further in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A).
With respect to claim 28, Cornelisen, discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the housing defines an [air]outlet (Cornelisen, 3, fig. 1; [0017]). however, does not explicitly disclose wherein a backbone connected to the housing at a pivot joint, 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 at a pivot joint (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 with the backbone and pivot joint of Erickson, connected to the outlet of Cornelisen defined by the housing, for cleaning non-planar surfaces, thus increasing utility.
With respect to claim 29, Cornelisen, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 28 above, however does not explicitly teach a first wheel on a first side of the pivot joint and a second wheel on an opposite second side of the pivot joint.
Erickson further teaches of a first wheel on a first side of the pivot joint and a second wheel on an opposite second side of the pivot joint (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 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, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29 above, further comprising a motor operably connected to the drive shaft and configured to rotate the first and second brush rolls (Cornelisen, 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 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A), and further in view of Conrad (US 20190298124 A1).
With respect to claim 33, Cornelisen, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 17 above, and further teaches a ridge of a second radial height (Cornelisen, 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 the 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 the 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 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, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 28 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 (see two spiral bristles [ridge] 19, fig. 1; [0024]) however does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first and the second brush rolls comprises a flexible fin, 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 with the spiral fin arrangement of Conrad, to prevent hair from hair from embedding between bristles.
With respect to claim 35, Cornelisen, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 34 above, and further teaches wherein the ridge comprises a row of bristles (Cornelisen, 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 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A), and Conrad (US 20190298124 A1) and further in view of Yuen (DE 202018101345 U1)
With respect to claim 36, Cornelisen, 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 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 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 claims 30 to 31 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 (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A), and further in view of Thorne (US 20200367711 A1).
With respect to claim 30, Cornelisen, 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 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 to convey the debris away [to a suction motor or hose - previously explained in the rejection of claim 28 using Erickson].
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A), and Thorne (US 20200367711 A1) and further in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1).
With respect to claim 31, Cornelisen, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 30 above, however does not explicitly teach a roller connected to the armature, the roller positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the brush roll above the floor surface during use.
Sommer, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a roller (32, fig. 4b, [0040]) connected to the armature (12, fig. 4a, [0033], indirectly via measuring instrument 26a, fig. 4a, to pivot the armature 12), the roller positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the brush roll above the floor surface during use (engages floor carpet in [0043], then adjusts height of the gearbox [armature] 12, and thus the brush roll in [0014-0016]). 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 with the roller of Sommer, for the purpose of reducing wear of the brush roller and tearing of carpet by adjusting the brush height.
Second ground of rejection for claims 30 to 31 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 (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, 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelisen (DE 102007006654 A1) in view of Erickson (US 5123141 A), Steiner (US 20020124346 A1) and Moloney (US 20130305485 A1) and further in view of Sommer (DE 102017106367 A1).
With respect to claim 31, Cornelisen, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 30 above, however does not explicitly teach a roller connected to the armature, the roller positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the brush roll above the floor surface during use.
Sommer, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a roller (32, fig. 4b, [0040]) connected to the armature (12, fig. 4a, [0033], indirectly via measuring instrument 26a, fig. 4a, to pivot the armature 12), the roller positioned to engage a floor surface below the floor nozzle so as to set a height of the brush roll above the floor surface during use (engages floor carpet in [0043], then adjusts height of the gearbox [armature] 12, and thus the brush roll in [0014-0016]). 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 with the roller of Sommer, for the purpose of reducing wear of the brush roller and tearing of carpet by adjusting the brush height.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ashbee (US 8347454 B2) is a vacuum cleaner with air flow in a ball. Kim (KR 2004052089 A) is a wheel with dust suction.
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
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723