Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 18/724,180

ROLLER DEVICE AND CLEANING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jun 25, 2024
Priority
Dec 27, 2021 — CN 202111620476.1 +1 more
Examiner
RODGERS, THOMAS RAYMOND
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Midea Robozone Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allowance Rate
226 granted / 386 resolved
-11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +59% interview lift
Without
With
+59.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
426
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 386 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2025 and 6/25/2024 are being considered. 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an anti-false triggering assembly disposed at the main support, … wherein: the roller assembly is prevented from sliding outwards from the roller groove” in claim 9. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. When looking to the specification, the anti-false assembly is discussed being a spring loaded cam assembly that prevents movement. For examination purposes, this is the structure required of the claim, or equivalents thereof. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (US 20170055791). Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a roller device, comprising: a main support (Item 110)having a roller groove; and a roller assembly comprising a roller (Item 142), a locking component (Item 210), and an ejection component (Item 213), wherein: the locking component is connected to the roller, and has a first position where the locking component is locked to the main support and a second position where the locking component is released from the main support (Paragraph 99); and the ejection component is disposed at the main support or the roller assembly, and configured to provide a force for the roller to move out of the roller groove (Paragraph 91; helps remove the locking component). Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses the roller device according to claim 1, wherein the locking component comprises a locking support (Item 211), a button (Item 212a), and a swing arm (Item 212), wherein: the locking support axially is connected to the roller; the button is disposed at the locking support, the button being movable in an axial direction of the roller; the swing arm jaw is rotatably disposed at the locking support; the button is configured to move towards the roller to push the swing arm jaw to rotate(Fig 9), and the swing arm jaw is separated from the main support. Regarding claim 14, Lim discloses the roller device according to claim1,further comprising a connection assembly, the connection assembly comprising a bearing (Item 234), a first end cap (Item 120), and a second connection shaft (Item 141) , wherein: the first end cap is fixedly connected to a side of the roller facing towards the locking component; and the second connection shaft traverses the first end cap and the bearing and is connected to the locking component (at Item 233), the bearing being disposed between the second connection shaft and the locking component. Regarding claim 15, Lim discloses the roller device according to claim1,further comprising a drive assembly fixedly disposed at the main support and located at a side of the roller away from the locking component, the drive assembly being configured to drive the roller to rotate and be disconnected from the roller when the roller slides outwardly (Figure 6 Item 31). Regarding claim 16, Lim discloses the cleaning apparatus, comprising: a body housing; and the roller device according to claim 1,the main support being fixedly disposed at the body housing (Figures 3 and 4). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 25, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702257
HAND CLEANING TOOL INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL FINGER SCRAPERS
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12691557
Torque Stick and Wrench
5y 8m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12672501
APPARATUS AND METHOD OF TREATING SUBSTRATE
3y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12660796
ANIMAL CLEANING DEVICE
4y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653301
Oral Care Implement
4y 10m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+59.0%)
2y 11m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 386 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month