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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of A-I and B-IV in the reply filed on May 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species as defined in the election of species requirement of April 8, 2026, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 25, 2026.
Claims 11 and 12 recite a “brush motor” along with other details. A brush motor is not part of the elected invention of Figures 1-5. Claims 13 and 14 are dependent from claim 12 and are therefore also not elected.
Claim 15 recites a user-controlled actuator is operable to selectively control the direction of rotation of the brush. There is no user-controlled actuator in the elected invention of Figures 1-5.
Claim 16 recites a suction motor and suction slot. There is no suction motor or suction slot in the elected invention of Figures 1-5.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the collection container has a volume that is expandable or is a flexible bag. The collection container of the elected invention of Figures 1-5 is rigid with a a fixed volume and is entirely different for instance than the structure depicted in Figure 47.
Claim 20 recites a liquid reservoir and cleaning fluid is directed at the surface to be cleaned. There is no liquid reservoir in the elected invention of Figures 1-5.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the brush is rotatable in a clockwise direction and wherein the brush is also rotatable in a counter clockwise direction”. A cylindrical brush when viewed from one perspective seeing a first circular end and another perspective seeing a second circular end will see opposite rotations in terms of clockwise and counterclockwise. The claim has not stated any particular perspective or defined any other reference geometry to define the rotation direction. It is therefore unclear if a rotation in the clockwise direction and a rotation in the counterclockwise directions are open to different perspectives or not.
The term “large particulate matter”, “large particulate collection area”, “small particulate matter” and “small particulate collection area” are recited in claims 2-7. These terms include the relative terms small/large which are used to describe the particulates which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “small” and “large” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear at what size does a particulate become classified as small or large.
In addition, the limitations of claims 2-7 are functional limitations as they describe how the brush and paths function to convey the large/small particulates. It is unclear what structural requirements there are for the brush and paths structures to convey these small and large particulates to the collection area(s) as claimed. It is noted there are many different kinds of particulates that may interact differently and that particulates may have a wide variety of geometry.
It is also noted that the two causes of indefiniteness described above also affect each other.
Claim 7, recites, “the large particulate collection area and the small particulate collection area”. It is unclear what is collection areas are as their not proper antecedent basis for these regions in the claims. It may have been intended by the applicant to actually just be referring to the collection area which does have antecedent basis in claims 5 and 6.
Claims dependent from the claims discussed above are also rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colasanti et al. (U.S Patent 8,726,441) hereinafter Colasanti.
Regarding claim 1, Colasanti discloses:
A surface cleaning apparatus {Figure 1 (10); Column 1 lines 14-18} comprising:
a surface cleaning head {Figure 3 (14) is all parts of (10) that are not part of (12)} having:
a front end {Figure 8, the left side of (14), not labeled in this figure, see Figure 3},
a rear end {Figure 8, the right side of (14), not labeled in this figure, see Figure 3} and
a brush that is rotatably mounted about a rotation axis {Figure 3 (50) is mounted about a rotation defined in the horizontal direction of (76)}
wherein, when the surface cleaning head is placed on a horizontal surface and moved in a forward direction with the brush in position to clean the surface, the rotational axis extends generally horizontally and generally transverse to the forward direction {Figure 3 (50) placed on a horizontal surface has a rotational axis that extends horizontally and is perpendicular to the forward direction},
wherein the brush is rotatable in a clockwise direction and wherein the brush is also rotatable in a counter clockwise direction {Figure 3, the brush (50) is driven by the wheels (42). The wheels can rotate in both directions about their axis, therefore the brush can also rotate in both directions about its axis; Column 8 lines 10-34; Column 9 lines 58-60}.
Regarding claim 2, Colasanti further discloses:
(a) a first path from the brush to a large particulate collection area {Figure 8, from the upper instance of (54) to the upper region of (62); Column 9 lines 58-60}
wherein, when the brush rotates in one of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions, the brush conveys large particulate matter towards the large particulate collection area {When viewed from the perspective of Figure 8, a rotation in the clockwise direction of the brush directs particulate matter towards the large particulate collection area. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. With regard to any function requirement of the claim, the function is presumed inherent as the structure in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims; see MPEP 2112.01 I}; and,
(b) a second path from the brush to a small particulate collection area {Figure 8, from the lower instance of (54) to the lower region of (62); Column 9 lines 58-60}
wherein, when the brush rotates in the other of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions, the brush conveys small particulate matter towards the small particulate collection area {When viewed from the perspective of Figure 8, a rotation in the counter clockwise direction of the brush directs particulate matter towards the small particulate collection area. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. With regard to any function requirement of the claim, the function is presumed inherent as the structure in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims; see MPEP 2112.01 I}.
Regarding claim 3, Colasanti further discloses:
wherein, when the brush rotates in the clockwise direction, the brush conveys large particulate matter towards the large particulate collection area {see rejection of claim 2 above, the claimed directionality is disclosed} and,
when the brush rotates in the counter clockwise direction, the brush conveys small particulate matter towards the small particulate collection area {see rejection of claim 2 above, the claimed directionality is disclosed}.
Regarding claim 4, Colasanti further discloses:
wherein the large particulate collection area and the small particulate collection area are positioned rearward of the brush {Figure 8, the entirety of (62) is rearward of the brush (50)} and
the second path comprises a ramp extending rearwardly to the small particulate collection area {Figure 8 (82) is a ramp that extends rearwardly to the small particulate collection area (the lower portion of (62)}.
Regarding claim 5, Colasanti further discloses:
(a) a first path from the brush to a collection area {Figure 8, from the upper instance of (54) to (62); Column 9 lines 58-60}
wherein, when the brush rotates in one of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions, the brush conveys large particulate matter towards the collection area {When viewed from the perspective of Figure 8, a rotation in the clockwise direction of the brush directs particulate matter towards the collection area. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. With regard to any function requirement of the claim, the function is presumed inherent as the structure in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims; see MPEP 2112.01 I}; and,
(b) a second path from the brush to the collection area {Figure 8, from the lower instance of (54) to (62); Column 9 lines 58-60}
wherein, when the brush rotates in the other of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions, the brush conveys small particulate matter towards the collection area {When viewed from the perspective of Figure 8, a rotation in the counter clockwise direction of the brush directs particulate matter towards the collection area. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. With regard to any function requirement of the claim, the function is presumed inherent as the structure in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims; see MPEP 2112.01 I}.
Regarding claim 6, Colasanti further discloses:
wherein, when the brush rotates in the clockwise direction, the brush conveys large particulate matter towards the collection area {see rejection of claim 5 above, the claimed directionality is disclosed} and,
when the brush rotates in the counter clockwise direction, the brush conveys small particulate matter towards the collection area {see rejection of claim 5 above, the claimed directionality is disclosed}.
Regarding claim 7, Colasanti further discloses:
wherein the large particulate collection area and the small particulate collection area are positioned rearward of the brush and the second path comprises a ramp extending rearwardly to the collection area {Figure 8, the entirety of (62) is rearward of the brush (50), see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above}.
Regarding claim 8, Colasanti further discloses:
wherein the brush rotates at a first speed in one of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions and the brush rotates at a second speed in the other of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions and the first speed is less than the second speed {The rotational speed of the brush is related to the rotational speed of the wheels as they are linked through gearing; Column 8 lines 10-34; Column 9 lines 58-60. The brush may be rotated at a first speed by moving the wheels at a first speed via movement of the surface cleaning head forward. The brush may be rotated at a second speed by moving the wheels at a second speed via movement of the surface cleaning head backward. Any reasonable speed is possible in the forward / rearward direction of the surface cleaning head and via the gearing any reasonable speed is also possible for each of the the opposing rotational directions of the brush as well. The claim is directed to a function and use of the apparatus. The structure of Colasanti is substantially identical to that of the claims, therefore the claim function and properties are presumed inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 9, Colasanti further discloses:
wherein, when the brush rotates in the clockwise direction, the brush rotates at a first speed and, when the brush rotates in the counter clockwise direction, the brush rotates at a second speed and the first speed is less than the second speed {The rotational speed of the brush is related to the rotational speed of the wheels as they are linked through gearing; Column 8 lines 10-34; Column 9 lines 58-60. The brush may be rotated at a first speed by moving the wheels at a first speed via movement of the surface cleaning head forward. The brush may be rotated at a second speed by moving the wheels at a second speed via movement of the surface cleaning head backward. Any reasonable speed is possible in the forward / rearward direction of the surface cleaning head and via the gearing any reasonable speed is also possible for each of the opposing rotational directions of the brush as well. Because the wheels may be spun at any reasonable speed in either direction, the first speed may be less than the second speed. The claim is directed to a function and use of the apparatus. The structure of Colasanti is substantially identical to that of the claims, therefore the claim function and properties are presumed inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 10, Colasanti further discloses:
wherein the brush rotates in one of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions when the surface cleaning head is moved forwardly and the brush rotates in the other of the clockwise and counter clockwise directions when the surface cleaning head is moved rearwardly {The rotation of the brush is linked to the rotation of the wheels through gearing. When the rotation direction of the wheels of the surface cleaning head changes the brush rotation direction also changes; Column 8 lines 10-34; Column 9 lines 58-60}.
Regarding claim 17, Colasanti further discloses:
a collection container that is removable mounted to the surface cleaning apparatus {Figure 3, collection container (30) is removably mounted to the surface cleaning apparatus (14); Column 3 lines 54-59}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haberstump (U.S Patent 2,286,270) has a divider (66) that helps to capture dirt when the brush is rotated in either direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights