DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/14/2025 and 7/19/2024 are being considered.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to PCT/KR2023/000821 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 1/17/2023, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP 608.01(p) I B: For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date and
MPEP 1893.03(b): An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - ...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.
The specification amendment filed 7/19/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to KR10-2022-0009147 and PCT/ KR2023/000821.
Claim Objection
Claims 9-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10, 13 and 14 should read “a first reference value”
Claims 9, 11, and 13 should read “a second reference value”
Claims 12 , 14 and 15 should read “a third reference value”
Claims 12 and 15 should read “a fourth reference value”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-9, 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Ishizawa (JP2011030668A).
Regarding claim 1, Ishizawa discloses a cleaner comprising:
a suction nozzle (Item 8) configured to suck in outside air;
a brush motor (Item 31) configured to rotate a brush (Item 17) installed in the suction nozzle;
a suction motor (Item 12) configured to generate a suction force of the suction nozzle;
an acceleration sensor (Item 32) installed on the suction nozzle and configured to sense accelerations along three axes that are orthogonal to each other in a spatial coordinate system (Paragraph 33);
a power supply unit (Items 15, 48, 49, and 51) configured to supply power to the brush motor and the acceleration sensor; and a controller (Items 13 and 33) configured to control the brush motor, the suction motor, and the power supply unit based on a variation of an x-axis acceleration provided by the acceleration sensor and a sum of acceleration variations which is obtained by summing variations of x-, y-, and z-axis accelerations provided by the acceleration sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a stop motion of the suction nozzle based on the acceleration variation provided by the acceleration sensor, and in response to the stop motion of the suction nozzle being maintained for a first period of time or more, is configured to turn off the brush motor and the suction motor (Paragraphs 53-56, 59, 61, 75, and 98).
Regarding claim 5, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of any one of claim 2 , wherein in response to the x-axis acceleration variation being greater than or equal to a first stop reference value and the sum of acceleration variations being greater than or equal to a second stop reference value, the controller is configured to determine that a motion of the suction nozzle is the stop motion (Paragraphs 75 and 76).
Regarding claim 6, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control a rotation speed of the brush based on the variation of the x-axis acceleration provided by the acceleration sensor and the sum of acceleration variations which is obtained by summing the variations of the x-, y-, and z-axis accelerations provided by the acceleration sensor (Paragraph 32- 34, 76 and 88).
Regarding claim 7, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 6, wherein in response to the x-axis acceleration variation being greater than or equal to a first reference value, the controller is configured to change the rotation speed of the brush to a high speed (Paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 8, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 6, wherein in response to the sum of acceleration variations being greater than or equal to a second reference value, the controller is configured to change the rotation speed of the brush to a high speed (Paragraph 32- 34, 67, 76 and 88; Please note the interpretation of Ax is an acceleration reading not specific to the x direction since in other parts of the specification it discusses how the acceleration sensor can be Ax Ay and Az).
Regarding claim 9, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 6, wherein in response to the x-axis acceleration variation being greater than or equal to a first reference value, or in response to the sum of acceleration variations being greater than or equal to the second reference value, the controller is configured to change the rotation speed of the brush to a high speed (Paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 12, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 6, wherein in response to the x-axis acceleration variation being smaller than the third reference value, and in response to the sum of acceleration variations being smaller than the fourth reference value, the controller is configured to change the rotation speed of the brush to a low speed (Paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 13, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 1, wherein in response to the x-axis acceleration variation being greater than or equal to the first reference value, and in response to the sum of acceleration variations being greater than or equal to the second reference value, the controller is configured to change a rotation speed of the suction motor to a high speed (Paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 15, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 1, wherein in response to the x-axis acceleration variation being smaller than the third reference value, and in response to the sum of acceleration variations being smaller than the fourth reference value, the controller is configured to change the rotation speed of the suction motor to a low speed (Paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 16, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 1, further comprising a suction port (bottom of Item 8) through which the outside air is introduced, the suction port formed in a lower surface of the suction nozzle, wherein the y-axis is a direction parallel to a direction of a rotating shaft of the brush, the x-axis is a direction orthogonal to the y-axis, and the z-axis is a direction orthogonal to the x-axis, the y-axis, and the lower surface of the suction nozzle.
Regarding claim 17, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 2, wherein in response to determining that a motion of the suction nozzle is not the stop motion, the controller is configured to control a rotation speed of the brush and a rotation speed of the suction motor based on the variation of the x-axis acceleration provided by the acceleration sensor and the sum of acceleration variations which is obtained by summing the variations of the x-, y-, and z-axis accelerations provided by the acceleration sensor (Paragraph 32- 34, 67, 76 and 88;).
Regarding claim 18, Ishizawa discloses a cleaner comprising:
a brush motor (Item 31) configured to rotate a brush (Item 17) installed in a suction nozzle (Item 8);
a suction motor (Item 12) configured to generate a suction force of the suction nozzle;
an acceleration sensor (Item 32) installed on the suction nozzle and configured to sense accelerations along three axes that are orthogonal to each other in a spatial coordinate system (Paragraph 33);
a power supply unit (Items 15, 48, 49, and 51) configured to supply power to the brush motor and the acceleration sensor; and
a controller (Items 13 and 33) configured to turn off at least one of the brush motor, the suction motor, and the power supply unit based on a variation of an x-axis acceleration provided by the acceleration sensor and a sum of acceleration variations which is obtained by summing variations of x-, y-, and z-axis accelerations provided by the acceleration sensor.
Regarding claim 19, Ishizawa discloses a method of controlling a cleaner, the method comprising:
a detecting operation of detecting accelerations along three axes of a suction nozzle(Item 8; Paragraph 32-34);
a determining operation of determining a stop motion of the suction nozzle based on the accelerations along the three axes; and
a pause operation of turning off a brush motor and a suction motor in response to the stop motion of the suction nozzle being maintained for a first period of time (Paragraph 71-89).
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.
Claims 3-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizawa (JP2011030668A) in view of Yun (KR 20200035735A).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 20, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a stop motion of the suction nozzle based on the acceleration variation provided by the acceleration sensor, and in response to the stop motion of the suction nozzle being maintained for a first period of time or more, is configured to turn off the brush motor and the suction motor
Ishizawa fails to explicitly disclose in response to the stop motion of the suction nozzle being maintained for a second period of time greater than the first period of time, is configured to turn off the power supply unit.
Yun teaches a vacuum cleaner in response to the stop motion of the suction nozzle being maintained for a second period of time greater than the first period of time, is configured to turn off the power supply unit (Paragraphs 84-89). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishizawa to include the powering down operation as taught by Yun. Such a modification would help save energy while in a standby mode (Yun Paragraph 89). For plug in cleaning tools this would decrease a slow consumption of power if left unattended. Please note, changing the power supply to a battery style as taught by Yun is also viewed as obvious.
Claims 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizawa (JP2011030668A) in view of Scott (GB 2554780A).
Regarding claims 10 , 11, and 14, Ishizawa discloses the cleaner of claim 6. Ishizawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein in response to the x-axis acceleration variation being smaller than the first reference value and greater than or equal to a third reference value, the controller is configured to change the rotation speed of the brush to a medium speed, OR wherein in response to the sum of acceleration variations being smaller than the second reference value and greater than or equal to a fourth reference value, the controller is configured to change the rotation speed of the brush to a medium speed.
Scott teaches a vacuum cleaner wherein the brush roll has a medium power output (Page 4 Lines 33-35 and Page 10 Lines 9-35) and discusses how different floor types can affect the power output of the motors and the power consumption therein. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Ishizawa in view of Scott it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the brush motor with a medium speed within a predetermined accelerometer range. Further in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
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
Prosecution Insights