DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7, 13, 17-20, 23 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 on the basis that no excessive burden would be placed on the examiner. However, the examiner maintains the election requirement because the alternative structures directed to different cassette configurations would require additional search and consideration within similar classification areas, and the species directed to the “entrance features” of the cleaner would require completely different search terminology and classification area(s).
Although the applicant suggests that all pending claims 1-8, 10-13 and 17-24 read on the elected embodiment, each of claims 7, 13 and 18-19 are directed to the “entrance features” which are only applicable to the non-elected species C (Figs. 5A-E) and D (Figs. 6A-6B). Therefore, claims 7, 13, 17-20, 23 and 24 are all withdrawn, due to claims 17, 20, 23 and 24 depending from withdrawn claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation that the pedal is configured to disengage the cassette from the mechanical motor is not supported in the specification, or original application as a whole, to with any supporting structure that is actually capable of providing the claimed function. Paragraph 30 of the specification appears to be the only supporting disclosure, with structure (torsion spring and rotary damper) to lift the cassette and/or motor from the base, but the disclosure does not disclose how the pedal is capable of disengaging (or allowing disengagement) of the cassette from the motor. Further, the configuration of the remainder of the preceding claimed structure, along with the claimed pedal, are not known structures in the art to be understood or known to one of ordinary skill in the art how the pedal would function to provide the claimed function of disengaging the cassette from the motor (the spring and damper are understood to cause the rotation of the motor and cassette, but would require some specialized mechanism for the pedal to actually cause the cassette to disengage from the motor, which is not disclosed in any way). As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the pedal is configured to release the cassette and motor to allow the cassette and motor to rotate away from the base unit and allow the cassette to be disengaged from the motor, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation that “the mechanical motor is configured to rotate away from the base unit to an angle above the base unit” is unclear because:
The wording appears to suggest that the angle is above the base unit, whereas it is best understood by the examiner, that the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the motor is configured to rotate away from the base unit by an angle relative to the base unit (or relative to the initial/operating position of the motor) to position the motor above the base unit”, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Further, assuming the claim is intending to define the motor as being rotated away from the base unit to a position above the base unit, the motor does not appear in the drawings (elected Figs. 2A-2B) to be completely above the entire base unit due to the pedal and portions of the base unit adjacent to the pedal that appear to be above at least the lower portion of the motor. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the claimed position locates at least a portion of the motor, above the base unit, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed supra, it is unclear how the claimed pedal is configured to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 4, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (2017/0188765).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a ground brush for a vacuum cleaner, comprising: a nozzle assembly configured to be positioned at a distal end of the vacuum cleaner, the nozzle assembly having a base unit (10); a mechanical motor (not disclosed but obviously within drive unit 302 for driving the brush motor; with electric motors being the most common form of a drive unit for rotational brushes known in the art) disposed on the nozzle assembly; and a cassette comprising an agitation member (3), and a cover (20) over the agitation member, wherein the mechanical motor is configured to rotate away from the base unit to an angle relative to the base unit, to a position (Fig. 1) with at least a portion of the motor above the base unit (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above). However, Song does not specifically disclose the components of the rest of the vacuum cleaner, including a handle at a proximal end of the vacuum cleaner; a waste receptacle or a motor configured to draw air through the nozzle assembly and into the waste receptacle. The examiner hereby takes official notice that a handle, waste receptacle and motor to draw air through the nozzle assembly and into the waste receptacle are nearly universal components for known and modern vacuum cleaners, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the nozzle assembly of Song to a common vacuum cleaner having the handle, waste receptacle and motor as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Song further discloses that the angle is substantially 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 8, Song further discloses the base (10) unit obviously having a mechanical motor and mounted to a vacuum having ; a handle at a proximal end of the vacuum cleaner; a waste receptacle and a motor configured to draw air through the nozzle assembly and into the waste receptacle, as discussed supra, and having an agitation member (3) detachably coupled to a portion of the base unit (paragraph 9; “the brushroll can be taken out from the mounting space”); wherein the mechanical motor is configured to rotate away from the base unit to an angle above the base unit (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Song further discloses that the mechanical motor is configured to rotate together with the agitation member.
Regarding claim 11, Song further discloses that the agitation member is a brushroll with a plurality of bristles or flaps.
Regarding claim 12, Song further discloses that the angle is substantially 90 degrees.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (2017/0188765), as applied to claims 1 and 8 and in view of Oldfield et al. (2022/0346612) and Muir (9,844,307).
Regarding claim 2, Song discloses that the agitator member is removable when the motor is oriented at an angle, as discussed supra, but fails to disclose that the agitator, or the cassette as a whole (including the cover) is configured to slide over the motor. Oldfield and Muir both disclose similar nozzle assemblies for vacuum cleaners.
Oldfield disclosing an alternative drive unit to the drive unit of Song, that positions the motor within the agitator, and is known in the art to reduce the overall size of the nozzle, which will allow for easier maneuvering around and under furniture, and reduced size for easier storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar alternative drive unit to the cleaner of Song, with the motor positioned within the agitator, for reduced nozzle size, as taught by Oldfield, which will allow the agitator to slide over the motor, when the motor is oriented at the angle, to remove the agitator as intended by Song.
Additionally, Muir teaches that the agitator is preferably removable along with the cover, as a single cassette unit, disclosing that the removable cassette will make the cleaning head easier to maintain by allowing the user to easily access the bearing and easily dismantle the cleaning head without misplacing parts of the mounting assembly because the mounting assemblies can be single removable assemblies which cannot be disassembled further by the user, which makes maintenance more straight forward (Col. 1, line 55-Col. 2, line 9). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the cover of Song to be removable with the agitator as a cassette, as taught by Muir, to make the cleaning head easier to maintain and more straight forward. Thus, the when the cover is removable with the agitator, from the internal motor configuration taught by Oldfield, the cassette will be configured to slide over the motor when in the angled position (similar to Song and Oldfield).
Regarding claim 3, Song further discloses a hinge (shaft 21) at one edge of the base unit, wherein the cassette and the mechanical motor are configured to rotate together about the hinge.
Regarding claim 5, when modified by Oldfield and Muir, as discussed supra, the cassette will be configured to detachably couple to the mechanical motor.
Regarding claim 6, Song further discloses a pedal (release key 104 would be inherently capable of operation by a user’s foot, thus functioning as a pedal) configured to allow the cassette to disengage the cassette from the mechanical motor (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; similar to best understanding of the applicant’s vaguely disclosed pedal, the release 104 of Song will allow the motor and cassette to rotate for removal of the cassette from the motor, in the manner taught y Oldfield and Muir as discussed above)
Regarding claim 21, when modified by Oldfield and Muir, as discussed supra, the agitation member is part of a cassette, and the cassette is configured to be detachably coupled to the portion of the base unit.
Regarding claim 22, when modified by Oldfield and Muir, as discussed supra, the cassette will be configured to slide over the mechanical motor when the mechanical motor is orientated at the angle above the base unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lampard et al. (12,290,220; Fig. 17) provides another nozzle having similar structure and function as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 19 August 2026
Prosecution Insights