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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Rufenach fails to teach “at least one raised projection comprises an upstream ramp surface positioned such that the outer circumference of the roller brush rides up the upstream ramp surface when rotated” is not persuasive. The claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. The edge element/scraper guide in Rufenach which is being relied upon to read on the raised projection is moved or placed in a position to not only contact but also penetrate the outer circumference of the roller brush. As the roller brush rotates, the outer circumference “rides up” on a lower curved portion (upstream ramp) of the edge element/scrapper guide as it makes continued contact with the edge element/scrapper guide which is partially penetrated into the outer circumference. In addition, the limitation is in view with the previous limitation reciting “the raised projection projecting into the roller brush” which is achieved by Rufenach as the element/scrapper guide is penetrated into the roller brush. The actual sequence between “riding up” and “projecting into” is not specifically recited in the claim. Furthermore, there is no recitation to whether the roller brush “rides down” the downstream ramp surface or stops rotation as the raised projection projects into the outer circumference.
Applicant’s argument that Rufenach fails to teach “the downstream ramp surface is steeper than the upstream ramp” is not persuasive. The claim is given is broadest reasonable interpretation. The edge element/scraper guide in Rufenach has a curved portion with the top end being steeper than the bottom end as shown in fig 5. This reads on the claim limitation. Rufenach teaches the outer circumference rides up the upstream ramp surface which is less steep than the downstream surface. Furthermore, the claim does not recite the function or use of the downstream surface with respect to the roller brush.
Applicant’s argument that Rufenach fails to teach “a suction area faced by the downstream ramp surface” is not persuasive. Rufenach teaches the curved projection defining a channel leading to a suction source/area which means the suction source/area is above the projection. Since the top end of the projection (downstream end/ramp) is higher and closer to the suction source/area compared to the bottom end (upstream end/ramp), the suction source/area faces the downstream end/ramp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rufenach et al. (PG Pub U.S 2019/0000292).
Regarding claim 1, Rufenach teaches a cleaning tray (receptacle chamber 64 reads on cleaning tray) of a wet floor cleaner (10) (fig 1; para 0053-0054), adapted to receive a head (14) of the wet floor cleaner (para 0087; figs 1 and 5-7), the head comprising a roller brush (18) (para 0087), the cleaning tray comprising: a base (154) for supporting the head (para 0160); a brush channel (144) formed in the base (para 0162 and 0172) for receiving a bottom portion of an outer circumference of the roller brush (para 0162 and 0172); at least one raised projection (142/150) positioned along the brush channel which is for projecting into the roller brush when the cleaning tray is used (para 0148-0153), wherein the at least one raised projection comprises an upstream ramp surface (para 0152 and 0160-0161; lower surface of curved projection) positioned such that the outer circumference of the roller brush rides up the upstream ramp surface when rotated (0160-0161) and a downstream ramp surface (para 0152 and 0160-0161; lower surface of curved projection; upper surface of curved projection), wherein the downstream ramp surface is steeper than the upstream ramp surface (para 0152 and 0160-0161; seen from figs 5-7); and a suction area (66) faced by the downstream ramp surface (para 0173-0174; as suction fan may be possible in tank 66 which is in communication with projection ramp surface for sucking fluid/debris into the tank 66).
Regarding claim 2, Rufenach teaches a set of raised projections (para 0157 and 0160) each having an upstream ramp surface (lower surface of curved projection) and a downstream ramp surface (upper surface of curved projection) (para 0152 and 0160-0161; figs 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, Rufenach teaches wherein the at least one raised projection or each of the raised projections of the set has an apex at a junction between the upstream and downstream ramp surfaces (fig 5; para 0152 and 0160; implicitly taught since raised projection is curved), with an angle of 90 degrees or more (para 0152 and 0160; as seen from fig 5 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Apex with angle more than 90 degrees)]
PNG
media_image1.png
766
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Rufenach teaches in the brush channel, a flow guide (156) which provides a flow path (156) across the brush channel to the suction area (para 0172-0174).
Regarding claim 8, Rufenach teaches wherein the flow guide comprises two lateral side projections (152 and 94) which become closer together along the flow path (para 0157 and as seen from fig 5 shown below).
[AltContent: textbox (2 lateral side projections 152 and 94 get closer along the flow path)]
PNG
media_image2.png
766
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rufenach et al. (PG Pub U.S 2019/0000292).
Regarding claim 3, Rufenach fails to teach wherein the at least one raised projection or each of the raised projections of the set has: a height in a range 1mm to 10mm; and/or a length, parallel to a length of the brush channel, in a range 1mm to 50mm. However, the height/length of the raised projection is a result effective variable (para 0151). The height/length affects cleaning of the roller brush. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate height/length of the raised projection for effectively cleaning the roller brush. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the height/length of the raised projection such that height in the range 1mm to 10mm in order to effectively clean the roller brush. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 5, Rufenach fails to teach wherein the apex has a radius of curvature of less than 2mm. However, Rufenach teaches that the radius of curvature is a result effective variable (para 0151). The radius of curvature affects cleaning of the roller brush trimmings. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate radius of curvature for effectively cleaning the roller brush trimmings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the radius of curvature such that it is less than 2mm in order to effectively clean the roller brush trimmings. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 6, Rufenach teaches wherein the brush channel comprises a set of two or more raised projections (para 0149-0154) of shape (para 0154) but fails to specifically teach wherein there are at least two different shapes of raised projections within the set. However, since Rufenach teaches there can be multiple shapes (para 0154) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for there to be at least two different shapes of raised projections within the set in order to enhance cleaning.
Regarding claim 9, Rufenach teaches wherein the two lateral side projections form part
of a V-shape with an apex angle of an acute angle (reads on between a range from 40 and 120
degrees) (seen from fig 5 below). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range
disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
[AltContent: textbox (V-shape between 152 and 94 showing acute angle)]
PNG
media_image3.png
766
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Rufenach teaches comprising opposite side walls (top and bottom 162 surfaces), wherein one of the side walls has an opening (162) through which the roller brush is received laterally parallel to its axes of rotation (para 0172 and fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, Rufenach teaches the cleaning tray is adapted to receive a head (204) of a wet floor cleaner (fig 11; para 0205-0206) which comprises a pair of roller brushes (206 and 210), wherein the cleaning tray comprises a pair of brush channels (224/226 and 224/228) (para 0213), and wherein an area (220/222) is in between the pair of brush channels (para 0212; fig 11). However, this embodiment of Rufenach fails to teach the area being a suction area. However, another embodiment of Rufenach teaches that it is known for the area corresponding to a brush channel is a suction area (para 0174 and 0199) in order to aid in collecting dirty fluid/debris for enhanced cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the area between the pair of brush channels such that it is as suction area in order to aid in collecting dirty fluid/debris for enhanced cleaning.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rufenach et al. (PG Pub U.S 2019/0000292) and further in view of Brunnstrom et al. (PG Pub 2012/0311806).
Regarding claim 12, Rufenach teaches A wet floor cleaner (10) (fig 1; para 0053-054) comprising: a cleaning head (14) (para 0053) comprising: a housing (64) (para 0131); at least one rotary brush (18) extending across a width of the housing (para 0087); and a suction channel (66) for delivering suction to at least a space adjacent the at least one rotary brush (para 0173-0174; as suction fan may be possible in tank 66 which is in communication with channel for sucking fluid/debris into the tank 66); a delivery system (38/40) for delivering cleaning liquid to the cleaning head; and the cleaning tray of claim 1 (para 0065-0066). However, Rufenach fails to teach a pump for delivering suction to the suction channel of the cleaning head. However, Brunnstrom also teaches a floor cleaner wherein it is known to include a pump for delivering suction to the suction channel of the cleaning head (para 0029) in order to achieve the predictable result of suctioning liquid thus limiting the spread of liquid on the surface (para 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rufenach by including a pump for delivering suction to the suction channel of the cleaning head as taught by Brunnstrom in order to achieve the predictable result of suctioning liquid thus limiting the spread of liquid on the surface.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights