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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4098166 to Miele und Cie KG (“Miele”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Miele teaches a roller brush assembly (translation, abstract), comprising: a roller brush housing (Fig. 2, ref. 9, translation, page 8, last para); a roller brush (Fig. 2, ref. 3 and 4, translation, page 8, last para), located inside the roller brush housing; and a magnetic detector (para [0010], translation, page 3, para beginning “Particularly preferred is an embodiment”, page 9, para beginning “In one embodiment, the detection device can include a sensor”, detection device with sensor), configured to detect a magnetic signal, wherein the magnetic signal is configured to determine a type of the roller brush.
Miele does not explicitly teach that the magnetic detector is located on an outer surface of the roller brush housing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Miele assembly wherein the magnetic detector is located on an outer surface of the roller brush housing, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have the detector close enough to the brush roller magnets for good detection while avoiding collisions between the detector and the brush inside the housing (see, e.g., Fig. 2). Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Miele discloses an assembly wherein the roller brush comprises: a roller brush body (Figs. 3 and 4, generally), assembled in the roller brush housing (note Fig. 2); and a magnetic member (para [0017], translation, page 5, para beginning “Furthermore, the subject matter”). Miele does not explicitly teach that the magnetic member is arranged at an end of the roller brush body; and the magnetic detector is arranged at an end of the roller brush housing, wherein the end of the roller brush body where the magnetic member is arranged and the end of the roller brush housing where the magnetic detector is arranged are located at a same side. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Miele assembly wherein the magnetic member is arranged at an end of the roller brush body; and the magnetic detector is arranged at an end of the roller brush housing, wherein the end of the roller brush body where the magnetic member is arranged and the end of the roller brush housing where the magnetic detector is arranged are located at a same side, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have the detector close enough to the magnetic member for good detection while avoiding collisions between the magnetic member and the brush inside the housing, and between the detector and the brush inside the housing (see, e.g., Fig. 2). Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 3, Miele discloses a driver (para 10, translation, page 3, para beginning “Particularly preferred is an embodiment”), connected to the roller brush body and configured to drive the roller brush body, along with the magnetic member, to rotate.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4098166 to Miele und Cie KG (“Miele”, and note the attached translation) in view of US 2021/0378467 to Tam (“Tam”).
Regarding claim 5, Miele teaches a cleaning device (translation, abstract), comprising: a roller brush assembly, wherein the roller brush assembly comprises: a roller brush housing (Fig. 2, ref. 9, translation, page 8, last para); a roller brush (Fig. 2, ref. 3 and 4, translation, page 8, last para), located inside the roller brush housing; and a magnetic detector (para [0010], translation, page 3, para beginning “Particularly preferred is an embodiment”, page 9, para beginning “In one embodiment, the detection device can include a sensor”, detection device with sensor), configured to detect a magnetic signal, wherein the magnetic signal is configured to determine a type of the roller brush.
Miele does not explicitly teach that the magnetic detector is located on an outer surface of the roller brush housing, or a processor, connected to the magnetic detector of the roller brush assembly and configured to determine the type of the roller brush in the roller brush assembly based on whether the magnetic signal is detected by the magnetic detector. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Miele assembly wherein the magnetic detector is located on an outer surface of the roller brush housing, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have the detector close enough to the brush roller magnets for good detection while avoiding collisions between the detector and the brush inside the housing (see, e.g., Fig. 2). Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Further, processors were known in the art as effective for enhancing process control and automation, and inhibiting labor (see, e.g., Tam at, inter alia, para [0036]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Miele device as was known wherein it includes a processor, connected to the magnetic detector of the roller brush assembly and configured to determine the type of the roller brush in the roller brush assembly based on whether the magnetic signal is detected by the magnetic detector, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control and automation, and inhibit labor.
Regarding claim 6, Miele/Tam disclose a device wherein the processor is configured to instruct the roller brush to perform a cleaning function corresponding to the type of the roller brush, wherein different types of roller brushes correspond to different cleaning functions (Miele, para [0017], [0023], translation, page 7, first para, page 9, para beginning “In one embodiment, the detection device can include a sensor”).
Regarding claim 7, Miele/Tam disclose a device wherein the processor is connected to a driver (para 10, translation, page 3, para beginning “Particularly preferred is an embodiment”) configured to determine a rotation direction and/or a rotation time period of a roller brush body based on the type of the roller brush, and generate a first driving signal (Miele, para [0023], [0026]), translation, page 9, para beginning “ In one embodiment, the detection device can include a sensor”, page 10, para beginning, second full para); and the driver is configured to drive the roller brush body, along with a magnetic member (para [0017], translation, page 5, para beginning “Furthermore, the subject matter”), to rotate according to the rotation direction and/or the rotation time period based on the first driving signal (Miele, para [0023], [0026]), translation, page 9, para beginning “ In one embodiment, the detection device can include a sensor”, page 10, para beginning, second full para). Miele/Tam does not explicitly teach the device wherein the driver is in the roller brush assembly and the magnetic member is on the roller brush body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Miele/Tam device wherein the driver is in the roller brush assembly and the magnetic member is on the roller brush body, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have the magnetic member close enough to the detector for good detection and to inhibit complexity of placing the driver far from the roller brush. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 8, Miele/Tam disclose a device wherein the magnetic detector is configured to generate a pulse signal in response to determining that a magnetic pole of a magnetic member on a roller brush body approaches the magnetic detector (Miele, para [0023], [0026]), translation, page 9, para beginning “In one embodiment, the detection device can include a sensor”, page 10, para beginning, second full para); and the processor is configured to determine a number of rotations of the magnetic member based on the pulse signal, and generate a second driving signal based on the number of rotations, wherein the second driving signal is configured to adjust a rotation direction and/or a rotation time period of the roller brush body (Miele, para [0023], [0026]), translation, page 9, para beginning “ In one embodiment, the detection device can include a sensor”, page 10, para beginning, second full para).
Regarding claim 9, Miele/Tam discloses a device wherein the roller brush comprises: a roller brush body (Miele, Figs. 3 and 4, generally), assembled in the roller brush housing (note Miele Fig. 2); and a magnetic member (Miele, para [0017], translation, page 5, para beginning “Furthermore, the subject matter”). Miele/Tam does not explicitly teach that the magnetic member is arranged at an end of the roller brush body; and the magnetic detector is arranged at an end of the roller brush housing, wherein the end of the roller brush body where the magnetic member is arranged and the end of the roller brush housing where the magnetic detector is arranged are located at a same side. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Miele/Tam device wherein the magnetic member is arranged at an end of the roller brush body; and the magnetic detector is arranged at an end of the roller brush housing, wherein the end of the roller brush body where the magnetic member is arranged and the end of the roller brush housing where the magnetic detector is arranged are located at a same side, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have the detector close enough to the magnetic member for good detection while avoiding collisions between the magnetic member and the brush inside the housing, and between the detector and the brush inside the housing (see, e.g., Fig. 2). Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is Miele. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the magnetic member comprises: a radially magnetized magnet; and the magnetic detector comprises: a Hall sensor arranged in a magnetization direction of the radially magnetized magnet (as in claim 4), or wherein the processor is configured to generate, in response to determining that a number of rotations during which the roller brush body along with the magnetic member rotates in a first rotation direction reaches a predetermined number of rotations, the second driving signal, to adjust the rotation direction of the roller brush body to a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction (as in claim 10), in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714