DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-23, 28, 30, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006068209 by Morishita in view of U.S. 3,333,291 to Hondzinski in view of IT1056546 by Luccioli in view of KR20160109470 by Yoon.
With regard to claim 21, Morishita teaches an apparatus for cleaning a vehicle mat, wherein the apparatus comprises a frame defining an insertion port 11 (applicant’s first opening) configured to receive the mat and a second opening (shown but not labeled in Figure 1) that provides access to a cleaning vehicle mat that has fallen into a “net-like mat holder” 8 (page 6 of translation) after being cleaned, and wherein the second opening is vertically below the insertion port such that a user in front of the apparatus has access to the insertion port 11 and the second opening located below the insertion port (Abstract; pages 6 and 11 of translation). Morishita teaches that the apparatus comprises a first roller (the upper item 14 in Figure 4) and a second roller (the lower item 14 in Figure 4), wherein these rollers 14 function as “feed rollers” (page 7 of translation) that rotate while an inserted mat is propelled through the cleaning apparatus (pages 7 and 11 of translation). Morishita does not teach that the rotational axes of the feed rollers move relative to the frame or relative to each other. Morishita teaches that a first brush 15 rotates below the mat in order to aid cleaning of the mat (pages 7 and 11 of translation). In the apparatus of Morishita, the mat holder 8 that receives the cleaned mat is downstream the first brush, under the first brush, and extends toward the second opening (pages 6 and 11 of translation and Figures 1 and 2). Morishita’s apparatus comprises an enclosure (item 2 in Figures 1 and 2) that surrounds components of the apparatus (page 6 of translation). Morishita’s apparatus comprises a motor system that directly drives rotation of the second roller (the lower roller 14) and indirectly drives rotation of the first roller (the upper roller 14), and wherein, while rotating the rollers 14, the motor system simultaneously rotates the first brush 15 (page 7 of translation). Since the first brush 15 is a brush, it is considered to be structurally capable of scrub debris from the mat as the mat moves on a first pathway.
Morishita does not recite that the enclosure comprises panels that surround and enclose the frame and the mat holder 8.
Hondzinski teaches that when using a mat-cleaning apparatus to propel and clean a mat, such a mat-cleaning apparatus can comprise an enclosure 12 with a first opening 16 and a second opening 18 formed in the enclosure, wherein a to-be-cleaned mat is fed into the apparatus via the first opening 16, wherein a pan 28 (which is inside said enclosure) adjacent to the second opening 18 and below a brush 75 is used to hold a cleaned mat, wherein a surface 75 is used to deflect the mat towards the pan 28, and wherein the first and second opening are both located on a front of the enclosure such that a user advantageously does not need to change position to feed a to-be-cleaned mat into the first opening 16 and retrieve the cleaned mat from the second opening (Col. 3, lines 55-66 and Col. 5, lines 20-37).
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 apparatus of Morishita by having enclosure made of a panels that surround and enclose the frame, wherein the panels form openings, including two openings on a front side of the enclosure, wherein the first opening is an opening through which a to-be-cleaned mat can be fed, wherein the second opening is a lower opening through a cleaned mat can be retrieved by a user, wherein a holding pan is used (instead of the “net-like mat holder” 8) to receive and hold the cleaned mat, wherein the second opening provides a user access to the cleaned mat in the pan, and wherein an angled surface inside the enclosure serves to deflect a cleaned mat towards said holding pan. Motivation for having an enclosure was provided by the well-known fact (well-known in the cleaning art) that an enclosure can advantageously serve to protect components of a cleaning apparatus from the outside environment. Motivation for having the enclosure specifically be an enclosure with said first and second openings, said pan, and said angled surface was provided by Hondzinski, who teaches that when using a mat-cleaning apparatus to propel and clean a mat, such a mat-cleaning apparatus can comprise an enclosure 12 with a first opening 16 and a second opening 18 formed in the enclosure, wherein a to-be-cleaned mat is fid into the apparatus via the first opening 16, wherein a pan 28 (which is inside said enclosure) adjacent to the second opening 18 and below a brush 75 is used to hold a cleaned mat, wherein a surface 75 is used to deflect the mat towards the pan 28, and wherein the first and second opening are both located on a front of the enclosure such that a user advantageously does not need to change position to feed a to-be-cleaned mat into the first opening 16 and retrieve the cleaned mat from the second opening.
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski does not teach that the first roller (the upper roller 14) comprises a first plurality of compliant rollers, and the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski does not teach that the second roller (the lower roller 14) comprises a second plurality of compliant rollers.
Luccioli teaches that when using a pair of upper and lower rollers (items 2 and 1 in Figures 1 and 2) to guide and propel a vehicle mat fed into a mat-cleaning apparatus, each roller can successfully perform its task while having the particular construction of comprising a rotatable bar with more than three flexible rubber rollers extending therefrom, wherein the flexible rubber rollers are spaced apart from each along the length of the bar (pages 4-5 of translation).
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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski by substituting each roller 14 with a roller comprising a rotatable bar with more than three flexible (reads on compliant) rubber rollers extending therefrom, wherein each rotatable bar has its rubber rollers spaced apart from each other along the length of that bar. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Luccioli, who teaches that rollers constructed in such a manner – that is, each comprising a rotatable bar with spaced apart rubber rollers thereon – can successfully function as rollers for guiding and propelling a vehicle mat fed into a mat-cleaning apparatus.
The developed combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli does not explicitly recite that the rotary axes of the roller bars (on which the spaced-apart rubber rollers are located) are stationary and immovable relative to the frame or each other. However, since Morishita does not teach or suggest having the rotary axes of the rollers 14 be movable relative to the frame or to each other, Morishita is considered to suggest that rollers can successfully perform their roles of propelling and guiding a mat while having rotary axes that are stationary relative to the frame and to each other. 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 Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli such that the rotary axes of the roller bars (on which the spaced-apart rubber rollers are located) are not made movable relative to the frame or to each other. The motivation for having the rotary axes of the feed rollers be stationary is that Morishita suggests as much. In the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli, the feed rollers can be expected to be able to successfully perform their roles while their rotary axes are stationary relative to the frame and each other.
In this combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli, since the rubber rollers of the feed rollers are flexible, they are each considered to be structurally capable of having their perimeter deform towards their hub when a mat is advanced between the feed rollers.
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli does not recite that the motor system rotates the first brush faster than the rubber rollers of the first feed roller.
Yoon teaches that when using conveying rollers to propel a vehicle mat through a cleaning machine that cleans the mat with a rotating brush, the rotating speed of the cleaning brush can advantageously be set to a higher speed than the speed of the conveying rollers in order to ensure that the vehicle mat is effectively cleaned (Abstract; pages 5, 6, and 8 of translation).
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 method of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli such that the rotation speed of the first brush is faster than the plurality of rubber rollers of both feed rollers. The feed rollers are conveyance rollers, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yoon, who teaches that when using conveying rollers to propel a vehicle mat through a cleaning machine that cleans the mat with a rotating brush, the rotating speed of the cleaning brush can advantageously be set to a higher speed than the speed of the conveying rollers in order to ensure that the vehicle mat is effectively cleaned.
With regard to claim 22, in the developed combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, an angled surface (corresponds to applicant’s first deflector and hereafter referred to a “first deflector”) inside the enclosure serves to deflect a cleaned mat to a second pathway and towards said holding pan, wherein the second pathway is different from the first pathway. Applicant’s limitations specifying that the vehicle mat comprises the recited floor and the recited wall specify intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. The mat-cleaning apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon is structurally capable of cleaning such a mat. In the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the deflector bends the mat (downstream of the first brush) such that the mat can be directed down towards the holding pan. Applicant’s limitations specifying that the deflector bends at least one of the floor and wall of the wall so that an angle (between the mat floor and the mat wall) changes to a second angle that angles the mat downward toward the holding pan are considered to specify intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. The mat-cleaning apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon is structurally capable of having the deflector change such a floor-wall angle so as to angle the mat down towards the holding pan.
With regard to claim 23, in the apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the second opening is below the first opening, and the holding pan supports the cleaned mat so that the mat can be accessed through the second opening. The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, as developed thus far, is silent concerning how a plurality of panels are used to form the enclosure; the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not recite that a front panel extends upward in front of the holding pan and around the second opening. However, Hondzinski teaches having the enclosure surround the second opening and comprise a lip 26 that extends in front of the holding pan in order to prevent a mat from undesirably slipping out of the outlet (Col. 3, lines 54-73). 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon such that one of the enclosure panels is a front panel that surrounds the second opening and comprises a lip that extends vertically upward in front of the holding pan to prevent the cleaned mat from slipping out. In the art of forming an enclosure, it is well known that an enclosure can be successfully made of panels, and 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon such that the front of the apparatus is made with a front panel. Motivation for having the added panel surround the second opening and comprise a lip was provided by Hondzinski, who teaches having the enclosure surround the second opening and comprise a lip 26 that extends in front of the holding pan in order to prevent a mat from undesirably slipping out of the outlet. Hondzinski doesn’t teach having their lip 26 extend vertically, but the lip could successfully perform its mat-arresting role while vertical, and therefore, the motivation for having the lip of the front panel be vertical was provided by MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Shape, as a vertical lip could successfully perform the role of arresting undesired sliding of the mat.
With regard to claim 28, the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not recite that the first brush rotates at least 10 RPMs faster than the rubbert rollers of the first feed roller. However, in the art of cleaning a surface with bristles of a rotating brush, it is well known that the speed of the brush is a result-effective variable because the speed of a rotating brush affects the force with which brush bristles impact to-be-cleaned surfaces. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon by optimizing the speed of the first brush, as brush speed clearly requires energy input but also it is well-known that such rotation speed impacts brush-bristle-impact force on to-be-cleaned surfaces.
With regard to claim 30, in the developed combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, an angled surface (corresponds to applicant’s first deflector and hereafter referred to a “first deflector”) inside the enclosure is used to deflect and bend the mat downstream of the first brush and toward the holding pan.
With regard to claim 41, in the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the cleaned mat exits out the back of the enclosure before falling into the pan (see Figure 2 of Morishita).
Claims 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006068209 by Morishita in view of U.S. 3,333,291 to Hondzinski in view of IT1056546 by Luccioli in view of KR20160109470 by Yoon as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of ES2909117 by Orts.
With regard to claim 24, in the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the first plurality of rubber rollers (on the upper feed roller) includes a primary rubber roller, a secondary rubber roller, and an intermediate rubber roller therebetween.
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not teach that each deformable roller of the first plurality of rollers comprises a plurality of collapsible spokes to allow the deformation of the roller perimeter to occur.
Orts teaches that when attempting to form a deformable roller for a cleaning apparatus, the deformable roller can successfully be formed by having the roller comprise deformable spokes for allowing the roller perimeter to successfully deform (pages 3-5 of translation).
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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon by having each roller of the first plurality of rollers comprise flexible (reads on collapsible) spokes that contribute to the rollers being deformable and having deformable perimeters. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Orts, who teaches that when attempting to form a deformable roller for a cleaning apparatus, the deformable roller can successfully be formed by having the roller comprise deformable spokes for allowing the roller perimeter to successfully deform.
With regard to claim 25, in the apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Orts, the rollers of the first plurality of rollers are spaced apart from other to form an interrupted and discontinuous force application zone that applied a pressure to the to-be-cleaned mat. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the mat has varying contours specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Orts is structurally capable of cleaning a vehicle mat with varying contours such that the deformable primary, secondary, and intermediate rollers conform to the varying contours.
With regard to claim 27, in the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Orts, the second plurality of rubber rollers (on the lower feed roller) comprises a primary roller, a secondary roller, and an intermediate roller therebetween. In the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Orts, the primary roller of the first plurality of rubber rollers is above the primary roller of the second plurality of rubber rollers, the secondary roller of the first plurality of rubber rollers is above the secondary roller of the second plurality of rubber rollers, and the intermediate roller of the first plurality of rubber rollers is above the intermediate roller of the second plurality of rubber rollers.
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006068209 by Morishita in view of U.S. 3,333,291 to Hondzinski in view of IT1056546 by Luccioli in view of KR20160109470 by Yoon in view of ES2909117 by Orts as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of DE2404419 by Okamoto.
With regard to claim 26, the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Orts does not teach having a second brush above the first brush.
Okamoto teaches that when using a lower brush 22 below a mat in a mat-cleaning apparatus to brush a mat, an upper brush 23 having a smaller diameter than the lower brush can successfully be used to perform brushing of the upper surface of the mat in the apparatus (page 3 of translation).
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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Orts by having a second, upper brush inside the enclosure, wherein the second brush has a smaller diameter than the lower brush and is used to brush the upper surface of the mat while the first brush cleans the lower surface. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Okamoto, who teaches that when using a lower brush 22 below a mat in a mat-cleaning apparatus to brush a mat, an upper brush 23 having a smaller diameter than the lower brush can successfully be used to perform brushing of the upper surface of the mat in the apparatus.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006068209 by Morishita in view of U.S. 3,333,291 to Hondzinski in view of IT1056546 by Luccioli in view of KR20160109470 by Yoon as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of JP08323313 by Takasu.
With regard to claim 29, the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not recite having a second brush.
Takasu teaches that when cleaning an automobile floor mat with a cleaning apparatus comprising a lower roller brush (item 6b in Figure 2) downstream of a pair of feed rollers (items 5a and 5b in Figure 2), an upper roller brush (item 6a in Figure 2) positioned above the cleaned mat and parallel to and adjacent to the lower roller brush can advantageously be used to simultaneously clean the upper surface of the mat simultaneously with the lower brush performing its brushing (Abstract; pages 2-3 of translation).
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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon such that a second brush roller is positioned above the mat and adjacent to the first brush roller (item 15 in Morishita’s Figure 4), wherein the second brush roller cleans the upper surface of the mat in the apparatus simultaneously with the first brush roller cleaning the bottom surface of the mat. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Takasu, who teaches that when cleaning an automobile floor mat with a cleaning apparatus comprising a lower roller brush downstream of a pair of feed rollers, an upper roller brush positioned above the cleaned mat and parallel to and adjacent to the lower roller brush can advantageously be used to simultaneously clean the upper surface of the mat simultaneously with the lower brush performing its brushing.
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Takasu does not recite that the first brush rotates 10 RPMs faster than the second brush. However, in the art of cleaning a surface with bristles of a rotating brush, it is well known that the speed of the brush is a result-effective variable because the speed of a rotating brush affects the force with which brush bristles impact to-be-cleaned surfaces. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon in view of Takasu by optimizing the speed of the second brush, as brush speed clearly requires energy input but also it is well-known that such rotation speed impacts brush-bristle-impact force on to-be-cleaned surfaces.
Claims 31, 32, 34-39, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006068209 by Morishita in view of U.S. 3,333,291 to Hondzinski in view of IT1056546 by Luccioli in view of KR20160109470 by Yoon.
With regard to claims 31 and 37, Morishita teaches an apparatus for cleaning a vehicle mat, wherein the apparatus comprises a frame defining an insertion port 11 (applicant’s first opening) configured to receive the mat and a second opening (shown but not labeled in Figure 1) that provides access to a cleaning vehicle mat that has fallen into a “net-like mat holder” 8 (page 6 of translation) after being cleaned, and wherein the second opening is vertically below the insertion port such that a user in front of the apparatus has access to the insertion port 11 and the second opening located below the insertion port (Abstract; pages 6 and 11 of translation). Morishita teaches that the apparatus comprises a first roller (the upper item 14 in Figure 4) and a second roller (the lower item 14 in Figure 4), wherein these rollers 14 function as “feed rollers” (page 7 of translation) that rotate while an inserted mat is propelled through the cleaning apparatus (pages 7 and 11 of translation). Morishita does not teach that the rotational axes of the feed rollers move relative to the frame or relative to each other. Morishita teaches that a first brush 15 rotates below the mat in order to aid cleaning of the mat (pages 7 and 11 of translation). In the apparatus of Morishita, the mat holder 8 that receives the cleaned mat is downstream the first brush, under the first brush, and extends toward the second opening (pages 6 and 11 of translation and Figures 1 and 2). Morishita’s apparatus comprises an enclosure (item 2 in Figures 1 and 2) that surrounds components of the apparatus (page 6 of translation). Morishita’s apparatus comprises a motor system that directly drives rotation of the second roller (the lower roller 14), that directly drives the rotation of the first brush, and that indirectly drives rotation of the first roller (the upper roller 14; page 7 of translation). Since the first brush 15 is a brush, it is considered to be structurally capable of scrubbing debris from the mat as the mat moves on a first pathway.
Morishita does not recite that the enclosure comprises panels that surround and enclose the frame and the mat holder 8.
Hondzinski teaches that when using a mat-cleaning apparatus to propel and clean a mat, such a mat-cleaning apparatus can comprise an enclosure 12 with a first opening 16 and a second opening 18 formed in the enclosure, wherein a to-be-cleaned mat is fed into the apparatus via the first opening 16, wherein a pan 28 (which is inside said enclosure) adjacent to the second opening 18 and below a brush 75 is used to hold a cleaned mat, wherein a surface 75 is used to deflect the mat towards the pan 28, and wherein the first and second opening are both located on a front of the enclosure such that a user advantageously does not need to change position to feed a to-be-cleaned mat into the first opening 16 and retrieve the cleaned mat from the second opening (Col. 3, lines 55-66 and Col. 5, lines 20-37).
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 apparatus of Morishita by having enclosure made of a panels that surround and enclose the frame, wherein a panel of the panels forms two openings on a front side of the enclosure, wherein the first opening is an opening through which a to-be-cleaned mat can be fed, wherein the second opening is a lower opening through a cleaned mat can be retrieved by a user, wherein a holding pan is used (instead of the “net-like mat holder” 8) to receive and hold the cleaned mat, wherein the second opening provides a user access to the cleaned mat in the pan, and wherein an angled surface inside the enclosure serves to deflect a cleaned mat towards said holding pan. Motivation for having an enclosure was provided by the well-known fact (well-known in the cleaning art) that an enclosure can advantageously serve to protect components of a cleaning apparatus from the outside environment. Motivation for having the enclosure specifically be an enclosure with said first and second openings, said pan, and said angled surface was provided by Hondzinski, who teaches that when using a mat-cleaning apparatus to propel and clean a mat, such a mat-cleaning apparatus can comprise an enclosure 12 with a first opening 16 and a second opening 18 formed in the enclosure, wherein a to-be-cleaned mat is fid into the apparatus via the first opening 16, wherein a pan 28 (which is inside said enclosure) adjacent to the second opening 18 and below a brush 75 is used to hold a cleaned mat, wherein a surface 75 is used to deflect the mat towards the pan 28, and wherein the first and second opening are both located on a front of the enclosure such that a user advantageously does not need to change position to feed a to-be-cleaned mat into the first opening 16 and retrieve the cleaned mat from the second opening.
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski does not teach that the first roller (the upper roller 14) comprises a first plurality of compliant rollers, and the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski does not teach that the second roller (the lower roller 14) comprises a second plurality of compliant rollers.
Luccioli teaches that when using a pair of upper and lower rollers (items 2 and 1 in Figures 1 and 2) to guide and propel a vehicle mat fed into a mat-cleaning apparatus, each roller can successfully perform its task while having the particular construction of comprising a rotatable bar with more than three flexible rubber rollers extending therefrom, wherein the flexible rubber rollers are spaced apart from each along the length of the bar (pages 4-5 of translation).
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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski by substituting each roller 14 with a roller comprising a rotatable bar with more than three flexible (reads on compliant) rubber rollers extending therefrom, wherein each rotatable bar has its rubber rollers spaced apart from each other along the length of that bar. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Luccioli, who teaches that rollers constructed in such a manner – that is, each comprising a rotatable bar with spaced apart rubber rollers thereon – can successfully function as rollers for guiding and propelling a vehicle mat fed into a mat-cleaning apparatus.
The developed combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli does not explicitly recite that the rotary axes of the roller bars (on which the spaced-apart rubber rollers are located) are stationary and immovable relative to the frame or each other. However, since Morishita does not teach or suggest having the rotary axes of the rollers 14 be movable relative to the frame or to each other, Morishita is considered to suggest that rollers can successfully perform their roles of propelling and guiding a mat while having rotary axes that are stationary relative to the frame and to each other. 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 Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli such that the rotary axes of the roller bars (on which the spaced-apart rubber rollers are located) are not made movable relative to the frame or to each other. The motivation for having the rotary axes of the feed rollers be stationary is that Morishita suggests as much. In the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli, the feed rollers can be expected to be able to successfully perform their roles while their rotary axes are stationary relative to the frame and each other.
In this combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli, since the rubber rollers of the feed rollers are flexible, they are each considered to be structurally capable of having their perimeter deform towards their hub when a mat is advanced between the feed rollers.
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli does not recite that the motor system rotates the first brush faster than the rubber rollers of the first feed roller.
Yoon teaches that when using conveying rollers to propel a vehicle mat through a cleaning machine that cleans the mat with a rotating brush, the rotating speed of the cleaning brush can advantageously be set to a higher speed than the speed of the conveying rollers in order to ensure that the vehicle mat is effectively cleaned (Abstract; pages 5, 6, and 8 of translation).
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 method of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli such that the rotation speed of the first brush is faster than the plurality of rubber rollers of both feed rollers. The feed rollers are conveyance rollers, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yoon, who teaches that when using conveying rollers to propel a vehicle mat through a cleaning machine that cleans the mat with a rotating brush, the rotating speed of the cleaning brush can advantageously be set to a higher speed than the speed of the conveying rollers in order to ensure that the vehicle mat is effectively cleaned.
With regard to claim 32, in the developed combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, an angled surface (corresponds to applicant’s first deflector and hereafter referred to a “first deflector”) inside the enclosure serves to deflect a cleaned mat to a second pathway and towards said holding pan, wherein the second pathway is different from the first pathway.
With regard to claim 34, in the developed combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, an angled surface (corresponds to applicant’s first deflector and hereafter referred to a “first deflector”) inside the enclosure serves to deflect a cleaned mat to a second pathway and towards said holding pan, wherein the second pathway is different from the first pathway. Applicant’s limitations specifying that the vehicle mat comprises the recited floor and the recited wall specify intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. The mat-cleaning apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon is structurally capable of cleaning such a mat. In the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the deflector bends the mat (downstream of the first brush) such that the mat can be directed down towards the holding pan. Applicant’s limitations specifying that the deflector bends at least one of the floor and wall of the wall so that an angle (between the mat floor and the mat wall) changes to a second angle that angles the mat downward toward the holding pan are considered to specify intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. The mat-cleaning apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon is structurally capable of having the deflector change such a floor-wall angle so as to angle the mat down towards the holding pan.
With regard to claim 35, in the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the first plurality of rubber rollers (on the upper feed roller) includes a primary rubber roller, a secondary rubber roller, and an intermediate rubber roller therebetween. In the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the second plurality of rubber rollers (on the lower feed roller) comprises a primary roller, a secondary roller, and an intermediate roller therebetween. In the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the primary roller of the first plurality of rubber rollers is above the primary roller of the second plurality of rubber rollers, the secondary roller of the first plurality of rubber rollers is above the secondary roller of the second plurality of rubber rollers, and the intermediate roller of the first plurality of rubber rollers is above the intermediate roller of the second plurality of rubber rollers.
With regard to claim 36, the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not recite that the primary roller of the first set of rubber rollers is vertically aligned above the primary roller of the second set of rubber rollers. However, in the apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the function of the roller rollers is to contact, propel, and guide the mat through the mat-cleaning apparatus, and these functions could successfully be performed while rubber rollers are vertically aligned. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon by having the primary roller of the first set of rubber rollers vertically aligned with the primary rubber roller of the second set, the secondary roller of the first set vertically aligned with the secondary roller of the second set, and the intermediate roller of the first set vertically aligned with the intermediate roller of the second set, as such alignment would simply represented a rearrangement of parts that still allowed the rubber rollers to perform their roles.
With regard to claim 38, the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not recite that the plurality of panels of the enclosure comprises a rear panel. However, in the art of forming an enclosure, it is well known that an enclosure can be successfully made of panels, and 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon such that the rear of the enclosure is made of a rear panel that extends upward. Motivation for performing the modification is provided by the fact that the enclosure serves to protect apparatus components from the external environment, and a rear panel would advantageously allow the apparatus’s rear to have a protective panel.
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not recite that the plurality of panels of the enclosure comprise first and second side panels. However, in the art of forming an enclosure, it is well known that an enclosure can be successfully made of panels, and 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon such that first and second sides of the enclosure are made of first and second side panels, respectively. Motivation for performing the modification is provided by the fact that the enclosure serves to protect apparatus components from the external environment, and such side panels would advantageously allow the apparatus’s sides to have protection from the outside environment.
With regard to claim 39, in the apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the enclosure surrounds the holding pan. The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not recite that the frame is mounted on a plurality of castors. However, in the art of cleaning apparatuses, it is well known to have a cleaning apparatus mounted on castors such that the apparatus can be successfully moved over a floor surface. 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon by having the frame mounted on castors – the motivation being that such castors would allow the mat-cleaning apparatus to be moveable over a floor surface if a user wants to change the location of the mat-cleaning apparatus.
With regard to claim 42, in the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon, the cleaned mat exits out the back of the enclosure before falling into the pan (see Figure 2 of Morishita).
The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon teaches having flexible (reads on compliant) rollers 16 (in Figures 2 and 4 of Morishita) downstream of the first brush 15 (in Figures 2 and 4 of Morishita) and upstream of where a cleaned mat is exits out the back of the enclosure, and Morishita teaches that the flexible rollers 16 serve to squeeze the cleaned mat to remove silver ion water therefrom (pages 7 and 11 of Morishita translation). The combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not teach having two sets of flexible rollers 16. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Duplication of Parts, 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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon by having two (one downstream of the other; both downstream of the brush 15 and upstream of where a cleaned mat is exits out the back of the enclosure) of the flexible rollers 16 arranged above the mat and by having two (one downstream of the other; both downstream of the brush 15 and upstream of where a cleaned mat is exits out the back of the enclosure) of the flexible rollers 16 arranged below the mat. Such a duplication would advantageously allow four flexible rollers 16 to contribute to squeezing silver ion water from the mat.
Claim 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006068209 by Morishita in view of U.S. 3,333,291 to Hondzinski in view of IT1056546 by Luccioli in view of KR20160109470 by Yoon as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of DE2404419 by Okamoto.
With regard to claim 33, the combination of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon does not teach having a second brush above the first brush.
Okamoto teaches that when using a lower brush 22 below a mat in a mat-cleaning apparatus to brush a mat, an upper brush 23 having a smaller diameter than the lower brush can successfully be used to perform brushing of the upper surface of the mat in the apparatus (page 3 of translation).
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 apparatus of Morishita in view of Hondzinski in view of Luccioli in view of Yoon by having a second, upper brush inside the enclosure and mounted to the frame, wherein the second brush has a smaller diameter than the lower brush and is used to brush the upper surface of the mat while the first brush cleans the lower surface. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Okamoto, who teaches that when using a lower brush 22 below a mat in a mat-cleaning apparatus to brush a mat, an upper brush 23 having a smaller diameter than the lower brush can successfully be used to perform brushing of the upper surface of the mat in the apparatus.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IT1056546 by Luccioli in view of U.S. 3,333,291 to Hondzinski.
With regard to claim 40, Luccioli teaches an apparatus for cleaning a vehicle mat, wherein the apparatus comprises a first set of flexible (reads on compliant) rubber rollers located on a first bar of a first feed roller 2 and configured to be rotated about a first rotation axis, and wherein the first bar is mounted to a frame of the apparatus (pages 4-5 of Luccioli translation). Luccioli’s apparatus comprises a second set of flexible (reads on compliant) rubber rollers located on a second bar of a second feed roller 1 and configured to be rotated about a second rotation axis, wherein the second bar is mounted to the frame of the apparatus, and wherein the second bar is below the first bar such that the to-be-cleaned mat is fed into the apparatus between the bottom surfaces of the first set of rubber rollers and the top surfaces of the second set of rubber rollers (pages 4-5 of Luccioli translation). Luccioli’s apparatus comprises a first rotating brush 5 that is mounted to the frame downstream of the first set of rubber rollers, and wherein a motor system (comprising motor 12) is configured to drive the brush 5 at a faster speed than the first and second feed rollers (pages 4-5 of translation). That motor system also directly drives the rotation of the second feed roller 1 and indirectly drives the rotation of the first feed roller 2.
Luccioli does not teach that the apparatus comprises a holding pan downstream of and under the first brush 5.
Hondzinski teaches that when using a mat-cleaning apparatus to propel and clean a mat, such a mat-cleaning apparatus can comprise an enclosure 12 with a first opening 16 and a second opening 18 formed in the enclosure, wherein a to-be-cleaned mat is fed into the apparatus via the first opening 16, wherein a pan 28 (which is inside said enclosure) adjacent to the second opening 18 and below a brush 75 is used to hold a cleaned mat, wherein a surface 75 is used to deflect the mat towards the pan 28, and wherein the first and second opening are both located on a front of the enclosure such that a user advantageously does not need to change position to feed a to-be-cleaned mat into the first opening 16 and retrieve the cleaned mat from the second opening (Col. 3, lines 55-66 and Col. 5, lines 20-37).
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 apparatus of Luccioli such that the apparatus comprises an enclosure made of panels and with front openings for inserting and removing the mat, wherein the enclosure surrounds and encloses the frame, and wherein the apparatus comprises a holding pan downstream of and below the first brush 5 and within the enclosure such a cleaned mat is deflected by a surface of the apparatus into said pan such that a user can selectively remove the cleaned mat from the apparatus via an opening in the enclosure. Motivation for having an enclosure was provided by the well-known fact (well-known in the cleaning art) that an enclosure can advantageously serve to protect components of a cleaning apparatus from the outside environment. Motivation for having the enclosure specifically be an enclosure with said front openings, said pan, and said deflection surface was provided by Hondzinski, who teaches that when using a mat-cleaning apparatus to propel and clean a mat, such a mat-cleaning apparatus can comprise an enclosure 12 with a first opening 16 and a second opening 18 formed in the enclosure, wherein a to-be-cleaned mat is fid into the apparatus via the first opening 16, wherein a pan 28 (which is inside said enclosure) adjacent to the second opening 18 and below a brush 75 is used to hold a cleaned mat, wherein a surface 75 is used to deflect the mat towards the pan 28, and wherein the first and second opening are both located on a front of the enclosure such that a user advantageously does not need to change position to feed a to-be-cleaned mat into the first opening 16 and retrieve the cleaned mat from the second opening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds or rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (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 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights