Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Regarding claim 5, the motor that forms the rotary drive has not been shown in the figures. Therefore, the motor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figures is being amended. The figures or figures number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing is to be canceled, the appropriate figures must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "16" and "15" have both been used to designate the second housing, yet the specification discloses one in the same housing part. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said the housing has first and second housing parts that are detachably connectable to one another”. Consider amending to –said housing has first and second housing parts that are detachably connectable to one another--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation " The cleaning device according to claim 1, which comprises an electric motor with gearbox and at least one energy supply element, forming a rotary drive of said brush roller on and in said brush roller”. It is not particularly clear what is meant by the term “on” in the phrase “on and in”. As best understood and for examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as --
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation " said first housing part has a base plate, which forms part of the bottom wall of said housing and to which said handle is attached ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it has not been previously recited. Consider amending to --a bottom wall-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 19 recites the limitation " The cleaning device according to claim 16, wherein longitudinal ribs, which are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction are arranged between said lamellae”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the term “lamellae” has not been previously recited from claim 16, which claim 19 is a dependent. As best understood and for examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dingert (US 8495781).
Regarding claim 1, Dingert discloses a cleaning device (1; fig.2), comprising: a housing (2; fig. 2; col. 5 ll. 36-43) having an underside (as annotated in fig. 2 below); a handle (8; fig. 3; col. 5 ll. 36-43) connected to said housing and configured to enable said housing to be moveable by hand with said underside over a floor (fig.4; col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8); a brush roller (3; fig.2) rotatably mounted in said housing and electrically drivable (col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8), said brush roller resting with a brush structure (3; fig. 2; col. 5 ll. 49-57) on the floor and said rotating brush roller picking up dirt particles with said brush structure upon passing over the floor (fig. 2; col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8); and a receiving compartment (4; fig. 3) for receiving the dirt particles arranged in said housing along said brush roller (fig. 2; col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8), and said brush roller having a direction of rotation directed towards said receiving compartment (fig. 2; col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8), so that the dirt particles picked up from the floor with the brush roller are conveyed into said receiving compartment (fig. 2; col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Dingert discloses the cleaning device of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein said housing has a substantially flat, rectangular shape (fig. 3, housing is substantially rectangular and flat on the top); and said brush roller is arranged in a lateral edge region (as shown above, brush roller is housed in the front edge region of the second housing; col.5 ll. 36-42).
Regarding claim 9, Dingert discloses the cleaning device of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein said [[the]] housing has first (as annotated below in fig. 3) and second housing (2; fig.3) parts that are detachably connectable to one another (fig. 3; col.6 ll. 2-10); said first housing part has a base plate (rectangular first housing also defines the base plate, as annotated below in fig.3), which forms part of the bottom wall of said housing (as annotated below in fig.3) and to which said handle is attached (fig. 3); and said second housing part is a cover shell part (as annotated below in fig.3) which is detachably connectable to said base plate (fig. 3; col.6 ll. 2-10); said brush roller is arranged in said cover shell part (fig. 2; col.5 ll. 36-42).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Dingert discloses the cleaning device of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses wherein said brush roller is covered by a shell edge region with a gap spacing up to a floor gap (as annotated in fig.2 below; col. 4 ll. 61-67).
PNG
media_image3.png
531
769
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Dingert teaches the limitations of the cleaning device according to claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said receiving compartment has a roller-remote longitudinal sidewall (as annotated in fig. 4 below) and a roller-near longitudinal sidewall (as annotated in fig. 4 below); said roller-remote longitudinal sidewall is higher than said roller-near longitudinal sidewall (as shown in fig. 4 below) and, in an inserted state of said receiving compartment, rests against an underside of a top wall of said cover shell part (as annotated in fig. 4 below); and said roller-near longitudinal sidewall is comparatively lower than said roller-remote longitudinal sidewall (as shown in fig. 4 below) and, in the pushed-in state of said receiving compartment, a feeding gap for dirt particles is formed between the underside of said top wall of said cover shell part and said roller-near longitudinal sidewall (as annotated in fig. 4 below; col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8 )
PNG
media_image4.png
520
683
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Dingert discloses the cleaning device of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said brush structure on a circumference of said brush roller is formed by at least one of bristles or hair (fig. 4; col. 5 ll. 49-57).
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 2, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being taught by Dingert (US 8495781) further in view of Ho (US 20060242775).
Regarding claim 2, Dingert (US 8495781) teaches the limitations of the cleaning device of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches an articulated joint connected to an end of said handle to said housing (fig.1; col. 3 ll. 61-67), however does not explicitly disclose the joint being a universal joint.
However, Ho (US 20060242775), concerned with the art of a floor cleaning apparatus, teaches a universal joint (12 and 88, Ho; fig. 6; pp. 60 and 62).
Both Dingert and Ho are concerned with a floor cleaning apparatus wherein the handle is connected to a housing. 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 housing and end of the handle, as taught by Dingert, to include a universal joint, as taught by Ho, to increase the maneuverability of the cleaning apparatus in different cleaning tasks (fig. 6, Ho; pp. 62).
Regarding Claim 10, Dingert teaches the limitations of the cleaning device according to claim 9, as described above, and further teaches wherein said handle is centrally attached to said base plate (fig.3, Dingert, handle is shown attached to the middle of the base plate; col. 5 ll. 36-43) and said second housing part is detachably plugged onto and fixed to said base plate (fig. 3; col.6 ll. 2-10) and said brush roller is arranged in a shell side region of said cover shell part (as annotated in fig. 2 below col 5 ll. 66-67 and col. 6 ll. 1-8).
PNG
media_image5.png
319
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dingert does not disclose wherein said handle is attached to a universal joint to said base plate.
However, Ho (US 20060242775), concerned with the art of a floor cleaning apparatus, teaches a universal joint (12 and 88, Ho; fig. 6;pp. 60 and 62).
Both Dingert and Ho are concerned with a floor cleaning apparatus wherein the handle is connected to a housing. 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 housing and end of the handle, as taught by Dingert, to include a universal joint, as taught by Ho, to increase the maneuverability of the cleaning apparatus in different cleaning tasks (fig. 6, Ho; pp. 62).
Lastly, Dingert as modified by Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein second housing part is detachably plugged onto and fixed to said base plate by plug-in elements and/or clip elements. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second housing, as disclosed by Dingert as modified by Ho to be detachably plugged onto and fixed to said base plate by plug-in elements and/or clip elements since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (refer to MPEP 2144.04 (V-C)).
Regarding claim 13, Dingert as modified by Ho teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches wherein said receiving compartment in said cover shell part is formed as a laterally extendable drawer compartment (as shown in fig. 3, Dingert; col. 3, ll. 1-7).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingert (US 8495781) as modified by Ho (US 20060242775) and further in view of Muir (US 20210113039 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Dingert as modified by Ho discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches a covering shell region (fig. 2; col.5 ll. 36-42) however, does not explicitly teach a covering shell wherein the covering shell edge is made transparent material. However, Muir teaches a transparent cover (112; Muir fig. 1; pp. 38) that is housed at the edge of the covering shell.
Both Muir and Dingert as modified by Ho are concerned with a dust collection structure in a cleaning device that utilizes a roller brush containing bristles, ribs, and lamella. 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 Dingert as modified by Ho to additionally provide a transparent cover, taught by Muir, to the covering shell, taught by Dingert as modified by Ho, for the purpose of allowing a user to see when the roller brush is in operation and when the roller brush requires maintenance (Muir pp. 38).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being taught by Dingert (US 8495781) in view of an alternative embodiment of Dingert.
Regarding claim 20, Dingert discloses the limitations of the cleaning device according to claim 9, as described above, and further teaches wherein an underside of said base plate is configured for attaching a wiping cloth (9; fig.4; col. 6, ll. 11-17). However, Dingert does not disclose wherein the wiping cloth overlaps said base plate with at least two opposite edge regions and is detachably held there by retaining elements.
However, an alternate embodiment of Dingert teaches, wherein the wiping cloth overlaps said base plate with at least two opposite edge regions and is detachably held there by retaining elements (12; as annotated in fig. 6 below; col. 6 ll. 28-38).
PNG
media_image6.png
502
397
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Both embodiments of Dingert are concerned with the art of a power floor cleaning apparatus that conveys dust from a motor assisted brush roll to a dust bin. 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 wiping cloth, as taught by the first embodiment of Dingert, to be extended, and further include snap fasteners, as taught by the second embodiment of Dingert, to the second housing and base plate, as taught by the first embodiment of Dingert, and to the wiping cloth while additionally adding an attachable extension to the base plate, as taught by the second embodiment of Dingert, as a means to have a secured cloth and improve cleaning performance on uneven floors ( col. 1, pp.46- 45 and col. 7, pp.42-53).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingert (US 8495781) in view of Hsiao (US 20070089250).
Regarding claim 3, Dingert discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above , however, does not explicitly disclose wherein said handle is detachably assembled from a plurality of handle parts. However, Hsiao (US 20070089250), who is also concerned with a power floor cleaning apparatus that conveys dust from a motor assisted brush roll to a dust bin, teaches a handle with a plurality of handle parts (11a, 11b, 11c; fig. 1; Hsiao pp. 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the handle of Dingert to one that is detachably assembled with a plurality of parts, taught by Hsiao, as a means for the user to operate the floor cleaning apparatus conveniently (Hsiao, pp. 26).
Regarding claim 15, Dingert teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a roller brush being replaceable (col. 5, ll. 20-30), however does not teach wherein a bearing of said brush roller is detachable for a roller exchange.
However, Hsiao (US 20070089250), concerned with the art of a power floor cleaning apparatus, teaches a bearing (441, Hsiao; fig.2 ; pp. 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a bearing for the roller brush since it was known in the art that bearings allow the roller brush to function as intended (Refer to MPEP 2144.03 (A-E)).
Dingert as modified by Hsiao does not explicitly disclose wherein the bearing of said brush roller is detachable for a roller exchange. However, 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 brush roll, as disclosed in Dingert as modified by Hsiao, to be removable from the bearing since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements for replacement, maintenance, and/ or repair involved only routine skill in the art (refer to MPEP 2144.04. V-C).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingert (US 8495781) in view of NI (US 20240081602) and further in view of Conrad (US 20220330770).
Regarding claim 5, Dingert teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the cleaning device comprises an electric motor (Dingert, col. 4 ll. 61-67), at least one energy supply element (Dingert, col. 4 ll. 61-67), forming a rotary drive (Dingert, col. 4 ll. 61-67; fig. 4) of said brush roller. However, Dingert as modified does not teach wherein inside the roller brush it contains a motor, battery, or gearbox.
However, Ni, concerned with the art of a floor cleaning apparatus, teaches an electric motor (311, Ni; pp. 138; fig. 13) and gearbox (312, Ni; pp. 138; fig. 13) both of which are installed within the brush roller (pp. 138 Ni; fig. 13). Furthermore, Conrad, also concerned with the art of a floor cleaning apparatus, teaches an energy supply element (180, Conrad) within a roller brush (120, Conrad; fig. 12; pp. 135).
Dingert, Ni, and Conrad are concerned with a power floor cleaning apparatus utilizing a motor assisted brush roller to collect dust. 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 brush roller, as taught by Dingert, to include a motor and gearbox, as taught by Ni, and an energy supply element, as taught by Conrad, within the brush roller as a means to optimize the size of the cover (pp. 136, Ni) and improve the compactness of the components it houses (pp. 138, Ni; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Dingert as modified by Ni and further in view of Conrad teach the limitations of the cleaning device according to claim 5, as described above, and further teach wherein the energy supply element is at least one rechargeable battery (col. 6, ll. 20-28, Dingert, all lithium-Ion batteries are rechargeable).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingert (US 8495781) in view of NI (US 20240081602) and Conrad (US 20220330770) and further in view of Hsiao (US 20070089250).
Regarding claim 7, Dingert as modified by Ni and further in view of Conrad teach the limitations of the cleaning device according to claim 5, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning device comprises an on/off switch for said electric motor arranged on a top side of said housing.
However, Hsiao, who is also concerned with a power floor cleaning apparatus that conveys dust from a motor assisted brush roll to a dust bin, teaches an on/off switch (311; fig. 2; Hsiao pp. 19) for said electric motor arranged on a top side of said housing (fig.2, Hsiao; pp. 26).
Both Dingert as modified by Ni and further in view of Conrad and Hsiao are concerned with a power floor cleaning apparatus that conveys dust from a motor assisted brush roll to a dust bin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the housing of Dingert as modified by Ni and further in view of Conrad with the on/ off switch of Hsiao, in order to switch on the power in order for the electric motor to start rotation of the roller brush (pp. 26, Hsiao).
Regarding claim 8, Dingert as modified by Ni and Conrad further in view of Hsiao, teach the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but does not explicitly state wherein said on/off switch is a foot switch. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the on/off switch to be a foot switch because it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense (In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingert (US 8495781) in view of Philipp (DE 102020115217).
Regarding claim 17, Dingert (US 8495781) teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the cleaning device has brush structure on a circumference of said brush roller formed by at least one of spaced lamellae.
However, Phillipp (DE 102020115217), concerned with the art of a motor driven floor cleaning apparatus, teaches said brush structure (14, Phillipp; fig.4; pp.35) wherein on each lateral side of the brush roller are spaced lamellae (2; Phillipp fig. 1; pp. 35) wrapping around said brush roller while also including bristles (3, Phillipp; as annotated in fig.1 below; pp.35).
PNG
media_image7.png
339
457
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Both Dingert and Philipp disclose a cleaning device wherein a brush roller is used to collect dust off a floor and guide the dust into a cleaning bin within the same housing. 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 brush roll, as taught by Dingert, to further include circumferential spaced lamellae onto said roller brush, as taught by Phillipp, as a means for the device to function as intended with respect to dust collection (Philipp, pp. 10).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingert (US 8495781) as modified by Hsiao (US 20070089250) and further in view of Philipp (DE 102020115217).
Regarding claim 18, Dingert (US 8495781) as modified by Hsiao (US 20070089250) teach the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said brush structure is formed by elastic lamellae spaced apart in circumferential direction at the circumference of the brush roller, and said lamellae extend substantially over a roller length.
However, Phillipp (DE 102020115217), concerned with the art of a motor driven floor cleaning apparatus, teaches wherein said brush structure (Phillipp, 14; fig. 1) is formed by elastic lamellae (Phillipp, 2; fig. 1; pp. 008) spaced apart in circumferential direction at the circumference of the brush roller (Phillip pp. 35), and said lamellae extend substantially over a roller length (as shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
336
456
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Both Dingert as modified by Hsiao and Philipp disclose a cleaning device wherein a brush roller is used to collect dust off a floor and guide the dust into a cleaning bin within the same housing. 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 brush roll, as taught by Dingert as modified by Hsiao, to further include circumferential spaced elastic lamellae that extend substantially over a roller length onto said roller brush, as taught by Phillipp, as a means for the device to function as intended with respect to dust collection (Philipp, pp. 10).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingert (US 8495781) in view of Morin (US 20160183752).
Regarding claim 19, Dingert teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, however does not explicitly disclose said brush roller, wherein longitudinal ribs, which are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction are arranged between said lamellae.
However, Morin (US 20160183752), concerned with the art of a floor cleaning apparatus, discloses a brush roll structure wherein longitudinal ribs (42, Morin; fig. 2B; pp. 51) are spaced apart (as shown in fig. 2B) and are arranged between lamellae (44, Morin; fig. 2B; pp. 51). The term “lamellae” has not been defined in the specifications, as best understood and for examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as a flat, elastic surface such as a rib or vane. This is consistent as how it is defined by merriam-webster.com: a thin flat scale, membrane, or layer.
PNG
media_image9.png
729
597
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Both Dingert and Morin disclose a cleaning device wherein a brush roller is used to collect dust off a floor and guide the dust into a cleaning bin. 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 brush roller in addition to its bristles, taught by Dingert, to additionally provide longitudinal ribs spaced apart in-between lamellae, as taught by Morin, to increase the utility for collecting debris from the cleaning surface (pp.51, Morin).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T. FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0401. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 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.
/MICHAEL THADDUES FARRELL JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights