The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the arguments received May 7, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 17, and 20 were amended. Claim 9 was cancelled. New Claim 21 was added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “surface cleaning apparatus” in Claims 1-8 and 10-20, “recovery system” in Claims 1, 19, and 20, and “vapor dispensing system” in Claims 1, 13, 15, 19, and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruiett et al. US 2021/0169294 (hereafter Pruiett et al.) in view of design choice and routine optimization.
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Pruiett et al. teaches:
1. A surface cleaning apparatus (steam sweeper 10), comprising:
an upright body (steam unit 12) comprising a handle and a frame (Figure 2); c
a base (base 16) coupled with the upright body (through wand 14) and adapted for movement across a surface to be cleaned, the base comprising a brushroll chamber (brush chamber 124 and passage 144, Figure 13) and a cover (cover 96) at least partially defining the brushroll chamber (shown in Figure 13 also Paragraph [0104] – “The brushroll 92 can be provided at a forward portion of the base 16 and received in a brush chamber 124 on the base 16. The brushroll 92 can be mounted for rotational movement in a direction D about the central rotational axis R defined by the dowel 98. The brush chamber 124 can be forward of the collection bin 94, and can be defined at least in part by the opening 122 and cover 96, as described in more detail below”);
a brushroll (sweeping element 92) in the brushroll chamber (Figure 13), the brushroll rotatable about a brushroll axis (rotational axis R);
a recovery system (system for collection of steam and debris, Figure 14) comprising a suction inlet port (opening 122) in fluid communication with the brushroll chamber, a recovery tank (collection bin 94), and a vacuum motor (suction source, Paragraph [0076]); and
a vapor dispensing system (steam distributor 90) comprising:
a supply container (supply tank 24) configured to store a liquid cleaning fluid (water or cleaning fluid, Paragraph [0082]);
a pump (pump 28) in fluid communication with the supply container;
a vapor generator (steam generator 22) in fluid communication with the pump and configured to receive liquid cleaning fluid from the supply container via the pump and to expel the cleaning fluid as vapor {Paragraph [0081]); and
a mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, shaded and labeled in attached Figure 13 below) within the brushroll chamber, wherein the vapor generator comprises a vapor outlet (apertures 174) that dispenses vapor into the mixing chamber to wet the brushroll (Paragraph [0132])
wherein a portion of the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, shaded and labeled in attached Figure 13 below) is defined between a top (either point #3 (topmost point of bristle 100) or point #4 (topmost point of dowel 98) labeled in attached Figure 13 below) of the brushroll (sweeping element 92) and an underside of the cover (any point on underside of cover 96 shown in Figure 13 below. For claim interpretation purposes, use either point #1 or point #2 labeled in attached Figure 13 below), and
wherein the mixing chamber comprises a clearance of at least 5 mm between the top of the brushroll and the underside of the cover (see discussion below).
Pruiett et al. discloses in Paragraph [0104] – “The brushroll 92 can be provided at a forward portion of the base 16 and received in a brush chamber 124 on the base 16. The brushroll 92 can be mounted for rotational movement in a direction D about the central rotational axis R defined by the dowel 98. The brush chamber 124 can be forward of the collection bin 94, and can be defined at least in part by the opening 122 and cover 96, as described in more detail below.” The cover 96 is shown in a removed state in Figure 17. The Examiner shaded the important areas of the cover 96 in attached Figures 13 and 15 below (note: the actual cover 96 part includes additional unshaded areas that have not been added to maintain clarity). In Figure 13, the Examiner identified point #1 and point #2 as two potential points for measurement to the underside of the cover 96. Additionally, the mixing chamber has been identified as a shaded cavity in Figure 13.
As shown in Figures 11 and 13, and described in Paragraph [0098], the sweeping element 92 (cited brushroll) is an assembly comprising a dowel 98 and a plurality of bristles 100 extending from the outer cylindrical surface of the dowel. Pruiett et al. additionally discloses in Paragraph [0098] – “The dowel 98 can be constructed of a polymeric material such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polypropylene or styrene, or any other suitable material such as plastic, wood, or metal. The bristles 100 can be arranged in a plurality of tufts or in a unitary strip, and can be constructed of nylon, or any other suitable synthetic or natural fiber. The microfiber material 102 can be constructed of polyester, polyamides, or a conjugation of materials including polypropylene or any other suitable material known in the art from which to construct microfiber.” Pruiett et al. additionally discloses in Paragraph [0099] – “Other embodiments of the brushroll 92 are possible. For example, the brushroll 92 can comprise tufted bristles as the only sweeping medium. Alternatively, the brushroll 92 can comprise a sweeping medium made of a soft and compressible material, such as microfiber material. In still other embodiments, the brushroll 92 can comprise nylon fiber, foam, elastomeric blades and paddles, or any other sweeping medium suitable for mechanically propelling dirt and liquid into the collection bin 94.” Therefore, to claimed “top of the brushroll” can be identified as point #3 being the topmost tip of the bristles 100 or point #4 being the topmost point on the outer cylindrical surface of dowel 98 of the as labeled in attached Figure 13 below.
As shown in attached Figures 13 below, there is a clearance between the top of the bristles (point #3) or top of the dowel (point #4) of the brushroll 92 and point #1 and point #2 on the underside of the cover 96. Therefore, there is a measured clearance distance between point #1 and point #4, point #1 and point #3, point #2 and point #4, and point #2 and point #3 as labeled in attached Figure 13 below. Pruiett et al. does not disclose dimensions for these clearances, nor does he provide any dimensions that would allow it to be scaled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the clearance would be dependent on the overall size of the device. Pruiett et al. is a Bissell device. Reviewing prior art steam and hard floor cleaning products from the Bissell website, the Pruiett et al. device appears to be a combination of a PowerSteamer and a CrossWave device. That being said, the CrossWave agitating rollers are known in the prior art to be 35mm. Scaling Figure 13 to make the diameter of the brushroll 92 to be 35mm, the smallest clearance (point #1 to point #3) appears to measure 5mm, with all other clearance dimension combinations are greater than 5mm. Therefore, it appears based on prior art information, that all the clearance distances identified by the Examiner would be at least 5mm as claimed on the actual device using prior art dimensions, however, modifying the Pruiett et al. device to create a clearance of at least 5 mm would have been a reasonable design choice since it appears to only require a small modification of the bristle diameter, cover, or spacing therebetween. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the brushroll, cover, or overall device shown in Figure 13 to create a clearance of at least 5 mm for at least one of the identified point combinations, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
874
1016
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
699
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Pruiett et al. teaches:
2. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, comprising a suction chamber (passage 144) within the brushroll chamber (brush chamber 124 and passage 144, Figure 13), wherein the suction inlet port (opening 122) is in fluid communication with the suction chamber (Figure 13), and the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13) is substantially fluidly isolated (by wiper 136 and rear interference edge 142) from the suction chamber (Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 3, Pruiett et al. teaches:
3. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 2, wherein a volume of the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13) is greater than a volume of the suction chamber (passage 144).
As shown in Figures 12 and 13, the cited chambers have a volume. Pruiett et al. does not disclose any dimensions or provide enough views to allow the volumes to be estimated or compared. As labeled in Figure 13 above, the length of the mixing chamber includes both the shaded volume and the air volume within the bristles extends that the entire length of the brushroll. The mixing chamber is a boundaryless volume inside the brushroll chamber where the steam and air are mixed. The suction chamber as shown in Figure 17 below appears to be shorter. Therefore, visually, it appears that the volume of the mixing chamber, which can be most of the volume of the brushroll chamber, is greater than the volume of the suction passage. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the cited chamber of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
PNG
media_image3.png
696
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Pruiett et al. teaches:
4. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 2, comprising a partition (rear interference edge 142) within the brushroll chamber (brush chamber 124 and passage 144, Figure 13), the partition separating the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13) from the suction chamber (passage 144).
Regarding Claim 5, Pruiett et al. teaches:
5. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 4, wherein the partition (rear interference edge 142) is disposed rearwardly of the brushroll (sweeping element 92)(shown in Figure 13), the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13) is defined above the partition, and the suction chamber (passage 144) is defined below the partition (Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Pruiett et al. teaches:
6. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 4, wherein the partition (rear interference edge 142) contacts the brushroll (sweeping element 92)(shown in Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 7, Pruiett et al. teaches:
7. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 6, wherein the partition (rear interference edge 142) projects 2 to 5 mm into the brushroll (sweeping element 92)(shown in Figure 13).
As shown in Figures 12 and 13, the rear interference edge 142 projects into the sweeping element 92. Pruiett et al. does not disclose a dimension for the projection, nor does he provide any dimensions that would allow it to be scaled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the projection distance would be dependent on the overall size, the bristle length, bristle stiffness, and the amount of friction generated by the interference. Therefore, modifying the Pruiett et al. device to project 2 to 5 mm would have been a reasonable design choice and be dependent upon other unclaimed variables. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the projection distance to be 2mm to 5mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Amended Claim 8, Pruiett et al. teaches:
8. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein is transparent or translucent to permit a user to view the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13) and observe the dispensing of vapor through the cover (Paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 10, Pruiett et al. teaches:
10. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the base (base 16) comprises a squeegee (squeegee 126) adapted to contact the surface to be cleaned (floor F)(Figure 13), and wherein the squeegee is disposed at least one of:
at a rear side of the brushroll (sweeping element 92)(shown in Figure 13); and
outside the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13)(shown in Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 11, Pruiett et al. teaches:
11. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the base (base 16) comprises an interference wiper (front wiper 136) interfacing with a portion of the brushroll (sweeping element 92)(shown in Figure 13), and wherein the interference wiper is disposed at least one of: forwardly of the vapor outlet (apertures 174)(shown in Figure 13); and at a front side of the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13)(shown in Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 12, Pruiett et al. teaches:
12. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the vapor generator (steam generator 22) comprises a high-pressure spray nozzle (steam manifold 170 with apertures 174 pressurized by pump 28) comprising an outlet orifice forming the vapor outlet (apertures 174), wherein the high-pressure spray nozzle comprises an orifice diameter of 0.1-0.6 mm and delivers vapor at a rate of 3.0 to 380 mL/min under a pressure of 300 to 7000 kPa.
Pruiett et al. discloses a steam cleaning device that, like the Applicant’s invention, uses a pump to deliver pressurized steam at a desired pressure and flow rate through aperture nozzles onto a brushroll for cleaning floor surfaces. Pruiett et al. does not provide any dimensions for the orifice diameter of the apertures 174, the rate of vapor delivery, or the pressure. The claimed ranges are quite large, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pruiett et al. device to size the orifice diameter, delivery pressure, and delivery flow rate to achieve a desired cleaning performance that would be similar to the Applicant’s performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious that an optimal value of the ranges would fall within an orifice diameter of 0.1-0.6 mm, and vapor at a rate of 3.0 to 380 mL/min under a pressure of 300 to 7000 kPa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15, Pruiett et al. teaches:
15. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the vapor dispensing system (steam distributor 90) comprises a heater (heater, Paragraph [0081]) configured to provide heated liquid cleaning fluid (Paragraph [0081]) to the vapor generator (steam generator 22).
Regarding Amended Claim 17, Pruiett et al. teaches:
17. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the base (base 16) comprises a base housing (base housing) and the cover (cover 96) is releasably attached to the base housing (Paragraph [0139]), wherein the cover is removable to access the brushroll (sweeping element 92)(Paragraph [0139])
Regarding Claim 19, Pruiett et al. teaches:
19. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, comprising a controller (controller 45) to control the operation of the recovery system (system for collection of steam and debris, Figure 14) and the vapor dispensing system (steam distributor 90), wherein the controller is configured to execute at least two of:
a first vapor wash mode (mopping mode of operation, Paragraph [0079]) where the pump (pump 28) and the vacuum motor (suction source, Paragraph [0076]) are powered, and vapor is dispensed to the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13) at a first temperature (steam);
a second vapor wash mode (not selected) where the pump and the vacuum motor are powered, a heater in fluid communication with the pump is powered, and vapor is dispensed to the mixing chamber at a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature; and
a self-cleaning mode (self-sanitization cycle, Paragraph [0191]) in which an unattended, automatic cleanout cycle (Paragraph [0191] – “the self-sanitization cycle can be automated so that the cycle is controlled by the controller 45 on the steam unit 12“) is executed to clean at least a portion of the recovery system (system for collection of steam and debris, Figure 14)(Paragraph [0190] – “During the self-sanitization cycle, steam is distributed from the steam unit 12 through the base 16. Components such as the brushroll 92, cover 96, and brush chamber 124, and optionally other components of the steam delivery system, are exposed to steam and sanitized to reduce the bacteria and/or thereon by a significant number, such as by at least 99%, and alternatively by at least 99.9%.”).
Regarding Amended Claim 20, Pruiett et al. teaches:
20. A surface cleaning apparatus (steam sweeper 10), comprising:
a cleaning head (base 16) adapted for movement across a surface (floor F) to be cleaned (Figure 1), the cleaning head comprising an agitator chamber (brush chamber 124 and passage 144, Figure 13) and a cover (cover 96) at least partially defining the agitator chamber (shown in Figure 13 also Paragraph [0104] – “The brushroll 92 can be provided at a forward portion of the base 16 and received in a brush chamber 124 on the base 16. The brushroll 92 can be mounted for rotational movement in a direction D about the central rotational axis R defined by the dowel 98. The brush chamber 124 can be forward of the collection bin 94, and can be defined at least in part by the opening 122 and cover 96, as described in more detail below”);
an agitator (sweeping element 92) in the agitator chamber (brush chamber 124 and passage 144, Figure 13);
a recovery system (system for collection of steam and debris, Figure 14) comprising a suction inlet port (opening 122) in fluid communication with the agitator chamber and a vacuum motor (suction source, Paragraph [0076]); and
a vapor dispensing system (steam distributor 90) comprising:
a supply container (supply tank 24) configured to store a liquid cleaning fluid water or cleaning fluid, Paragraph [0082]);
a vapor generator (steam generator 22) configured to receive liquid cleaning fluid from the supply container and to expel the cleaning fluid as vapor {Paragraph [0081]); and
a mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, shaded and labeled in attached Figure 13 below) within the agitator chamber, wherein the vapor generator comprises a vapor outlet (apertures 174) that dispenses vapor into the mixing chamber to wet the agitator (Paragraph [0132])
wherein a portion of the mixing chamber (portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, shaded and labeled in attached Figure 13 below) is defined between a top either point #3 (topmost point of bristle 100) or point #4 (topmost point of dowel 98) labeled in attached Figure 13 below) of the agitator (sweeping element 92) and an underside of the cover (any point on underside of cover 96 shown in Figure 13 below. For claim interpretation purposes, use either point #1 or point #2 labeled in attached Figure 13 below), and
wherein the mixing chamber comprises a clearance of at least 5 mm between the top of the agitator and the underside of the cover (see discussion below).
Pruiett et al. discloses in Paragraph [0104] – “The brushroll 92 can be provided at a forward portion of the base 16 and received in a brush chamber 124 on the base 16. The brushroll 92 can be mounted for rotational movement in a direction D about the central rotational axis R defined by the dowel 98. The brush chamber 124 can be forward of the collection bin 94, and can be defined at least in part by the opening 122 and cover 96, as described in more detail below.” The cover 96 is shown in a removed state in Figure 17. The Examiner shaded the important areas of the cover 96 in attached Figures 13 and 15 below (note: the actual cover 96 part includes additional unshaded areas that have not been added to maintain clarity). In Figure 13, the Examiner identified point #1 and point #2 as two potential points for measurement to the underside of the cover 96. Additionally, the mixing chamber has been identified as a shaded cavity in Figure 13.
As shown in Figures 11 and 13, and described in Paragraph [0098], the sweeping element 92 (cited brushroll) is an assembly comprising a dowel 98 and a plurality of bristles 100 extending from the outer cylindrical surface of the dowel. Pruiett et al. additionally discloses in Paragraph [0098] – “The dowel 98 can be constructed of a polymeric material such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polypropylene or styrene, or any other suitable material such as plastic, wood, or metal. The bristles 100 can be arranged in a plurality of tufts or in a unitary strip, and can be constructed of nylon, or any other suitable synthetic or natural fiber. The microfiber material 102 can be constructed of polyester, polyamides, or a conjugation of materials including polypropylene or any other suitable material known in the art from which to construct microfiber.” Pruiett et al. additionally discloses in Paragraph [0099] – “Other embodiments of the brushroll 92 are possible. For example, the brushroll 92 can comprise tufted bristles as the only sweeping medium. Alternatively, the brushroll 92 can comprise a sweeping medium made of a soft and compressible material, such as microfiber material. In still other embodiments, the brushroll 92 can comprise nylon fiber, foam, elastomeric blades and paddles, or any other sweeping medium suitable for mechanically propelling dirt and liquid into the collection bin 94.” Therefore, to claimed “top of the brushroll” can be identified as point #3 being the topmost tip of the bristles 100 or point #4 being the topmost point on the outer cylindrical surface of dowel 98 of the as labeled in attached Figure 13 below.
As shown in attached Figures 13 below, there is a clearance between the top of the bristles (point #3) or top of the dowel (point #4) of the brushroll 92 and point #1 and point #2 on the underside of the cover 96. Therefore, there is a measured clearance distance between point #1 and point #4, point #1 and point #3, point #2 and point #4, and point #2 and point #3 as labeled in attached Figure 13 below. Pruiett et al. does not disclose dimensions for these clearances, nor does he provide any dimensions that would allow it to be scaled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the clearance would be dependent on the overall size of the device. Pruiett et al. is a Bissell device. Reviewing prior art steam and hard floor cleaning products from the Bissell website, the Pruiett et al. device appears to be a combination of a PowerSteamer and a CrossWave device. That being said, the CrossWave agitating rollers are known in the prior art to be 35mm. Scaling Figure 13 to make the diameter of the brushroll 92 to be 35mm, the smallest clearance (point #1 to point #3) appears to measure 5mm, with all other clearance dimension combinations are greater than 5mm. Therefore, it appears based on prior art information, that all the clearance distances identified by the Examiner would be at least 5mm as claimed on the actual device using prior art dimensions, however, modifying the Pruiett et al. device to create a clearance of at least 5 mm would have been a reasonable design choice since it appears to only require a small modification of the bristle diameter, cover, or spacing therebetween. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the brushroll, cover, or overall device shown in Figure 13 to create a clearance of at least 5 mm for at least one of the identified point combinations, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
874
1016
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
699
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruiett et al. US 2021/0169294 (hereafter Pruiett et al.) in view of Krebs US 2018/0333736 (hereafter Krebs).
Pruiett et al. discloses in Paragraph [0078] that “The liquid can be boiled or otherwise converted to the gas or vapor phase by heating or mechanical action like nebulizing.” Pruiett et al. does not disclose how nebulizing is achieved in his device. The reference Krebs, from the same assignee, discloses in Paragraph [0029] the generation of vapor through nebulizing with the motivation to produce a mist that does not require heating the cleaning solution to a high temperature to produce steam. In Paragraph [0048], Krebs additionally discloses that by dispensing cleaning fluid in the form of a nebulized mist, over-wetting of the surface is avoided. Krebs discloses in Paragraph [0031], a mist generator 171 that can includes a piezoelectric transducer 174 for generating a finely atomized liquid mist by vibrating the piezoelectric element within a frequency range of 5.0kHz-2.5MHz to convert low viscosity liquid into fine mist particles with diameters ranging from 10 microns to 100 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steam generator 22 of the Pruiett et al. device to generate the vapor using nebulizing as disclosed with the specific structure taught by Krebs to generate nebulized vapor. Claims 13, 14, and 18 includes claim elements of the combined device.
Regarding Claim 13, Pruiett et al. teaches:
13. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the vapor dispensing system (steam distributor 90 – configured as a nebulizing device taught by Pruiett et al. with the components taught by Krebs) comprises a vibration generator (Krebs - piezoelectric transducer 174) configured to generate vapor from condensed cleaning fluid (Pruiett et al. - water or cleaning fluid, Paragraph [0082]) in the mixing chamber (Pruiett et al. - portion of brush chamber 124 adjacent apertures 174 and between interference edge 142 and front wiper 136, Figure 13), wherein the vibration generator comprises at least one of:
a piezoelectric transducer (Krebs - piezoelectric transducer 174) configured to vibrate within a frequency range of 1.0 kHz-10 MHz (Krebs - 5.0kHz-2.5MHz, Paragraph [0031]); and
an ultrasonic generator configured to vibrate at a frequency of at least 20 kHz (not selected).
Regarding Claim 14, Pruiett et al. teaches:
14. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 13, wherein the vapor generator (Krebs - piezoelectric transducer 174) comprises a plurality of high-pressure spray nozzles (Pruiett et al. - steam distribution channel path 172 pressurized by pump 28) including at least a first high-pressure spray nozzle and a second high-pressure spray nozzle (Pruiett et al. - plurality of openings or apertures 174 spaced along its length), and wherein the vibration generator is disposed intermediate the first high-pressure spray nozzle and the second high-pressure spray nozzle (as taught by Krebs Figure 3, piezoelectric transducer 174 is adjacent steam output location).
Regarding Claim 18, Pruiett et al. teaches:
18. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the vapor outlet (Pruiett et al. - apertures 174) is configured to dispense vapor comprising droplets having at least one of a diameter of about 30-50 microns (Krebs - diameters ranging from 10 microns to 100 microns, Paragraph [0031]) and a temperature of less than 100 °C (Krebs - Paragraph [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 21, a search of the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the device as claimed in the context of the entire scope of the claims. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art because the device is not taught nor suggested as set forth in the entire context of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed May 7, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under Pruiett et al. US 2021/0169294, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by amendment, new rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been created.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed May 7, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 3, 7, 9, and 12 under Pruiett et al. US 2021/0169294, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections stand. However, as necessitated by amendment, new rejections of Claims 1-8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been created.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments additional details have been added to the current rejection that helps to better explain the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights