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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recited “The suction head according to any one of claims 2…” There is only one claim 2. Examiner suggests amending claims language to “The suction head according to claim 2…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recited “The suction head according to any one of claim 1…” There is only one claim 1. Examiner suggests amending claims language to “The suction head according to claim 1…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a fastening device configured to fasten the bearing to the support ring” in claim 18.
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:
On page 13, lines 8-11 describe “the fastening device configured to fasten the bearing 28 to the support ring 26…the fastening device includes a plurality of fastening tabs which are provided on the support ring 26,”.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Marti teaches (Figure 1) a suction head (Par. 0081, suction head 2) comprising: a main body (Par. 0081, main body 4) comprising a suction chamber (Par. 0083, receiving housing 9) opening into a lower face of the main body which is configured to be oriented towards a surface to be cleaned, a rotating brush (Par. 0084, rotating brush 12) comprising a brush body (Par. 0084, brush body 13) having a generally tubular shape (See Figure 3, brush body has tubular shape) and a central longitudinal axis (Par. 0084, central axis A), the brush body being movably mounted in rotation in the suction chamber about an axis of rotation which is substantially coaxial with the central longitudinal axis of the brush body (Par. 0084, “the brush body 13 is removably mounted in the receiving housing 9 and is configured to be introduced into and removed from the receiving housing 9 along a mounting direction D2”), a drive device (Par. 0089, drive device 18) configured to drive in rotation the brush body (Par. 0089, brush body 13) about the axis of rotation (Par. 0089, axis of rotation A), the drive device including a drive motor (Par. 0089, drive motor 19) housed at least partially in a motor housing (Par. 0089, motor housing 23) delimited at least partially by the brush body (Par. 0089, drive motor 19 are arranged in motor housing 23 and delimited by the brush body 13), a support ring arranged inside the brush body (Par. 0097, “support element 35 is made of elastomer and is formed as an annular support ring”), the support ring configured to support the brush body (support ring indirectly supports brush body) and including a first axial face oriented toward the drive motor and a second axial face opposite the first axial face (See Annotated Figure 1), a bearing support (Par. 0095, support portion 32) fixed relative to the main body, and a bearing (Par. 0096, pivot 34) mounted on the bearing support and supported by the bearing support (See Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Axial Faces of Support Ring
PNG
media_image2.png
564
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: Bearing Support
Marti fails to teach wherein the support ring includes at least one through hole which opens respectively into the first and second axial faces of the support ring, the suction head being configured so that, when the suction head is in configuration, an air stream is capable of flowing through the at least one through hole.
Ho Seon teaches that the support ring (Par. 23, bearing supporter 15) includes at least one through hole (Par. 31, cooling holes 20) which opens respectively into the first and second axial faces of
the support ring (Par. 31, cooling holes formed on both sides), and airstream is capable of flowing through the at least one through hole (See Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
279
242
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3: Airstream Flows Through Holes
Marti and Ho Seon are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Marti with the teachings of Ho Seon’s cooling holes. Doing so would provide a support ring in which a path for cooling would be created allowing for adequate cooling for the suction cleaner’s motor (Par. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Marti and Ho Seon teach the suction head according to claim 1.
Marti further teaches wherein the support ring is secured in rotation to the brush body.
Marti fails to teach the at least one through hole provided on the support ring is delimited at least partially by at least one stream guide wall which is inclined relative to a central axis of the support ring and which is configured to generate a vacuum within the at least one through hole.
Ho Seon teaches the at least one through hole provided on the bearing supporter is delimited at least partially by at least one stream guide wall (Par. 31, air flow guide portion 21) which is inclined relative to a central axis of the support ring (Figure 8a, air flow guide portion 21 can be bent from 0-70 degrees) and which is configured to generate a vacuum within the at least one through hole.
Marti and Ho Seon are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Marti with the teachings of Ho Seon. Doing so would provide adequate cooling for the suction cleaner’s armature coil within the motor (Par. 31).
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1) and Strutt (US20190008349 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Marti as modified by Ho Seon, teaches the suction head according to claim 1, further teaching the partial delimitation by the support ring (taught by Ho Seon’s bearing supporter).
Marti does not teach an air-cooling circuit that is fluidly connected to the suction chamber, the suction head being configured so that, when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, air is sucked up into the air-cooling circuit from outside of the rotating brush and is circulated in the air-cooling circuit
Strutt teaches an air-cooling circuit (Par. 0079, coolant path) that is fluidly connected to the suction chamber (Par. 0067, suction chamber 18 is in fluid connectivity), the suction head being configured so that when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, air is sucked up into the air-cooling circuit from outside of the rotating brush and is circulated in the air-cooling circuit (Paragraph 0080)
Marti and Strutt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, with the teachings of Strutt. Doing so would produce an apparatus that sucks air into the cooling path from outside the clean air outside the nozzle because if air from the suction chamber was being used then, it would possibly clog the cooling path or damage the motor (par. 0080).
Regarding claim 3, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt teaches the suction head according to claim 2, as well as the at least one air discharge opening being formed by the at least one through hole provided on the support ring.
Marti does not teach the wherein the air-cooling circuit includes at least one air intake opening through which air is capable of being sucked into the air-cooling circuit and at least one air discharge opening through which the air flowing into the air-cooling circuit is capable of being discharged out of the air-cooling circuit,
Strutt teaches wherein the air-cooling circuit (Par. 0079, coolant path) includes at least one air intake opening (Par. 0079, vent 108 in the end wall 16e forms the inlet of the coolant path) through which air is capable of being sucked into the air-cooling circuit and at multiple air discharge opening (See Fig. 2, cent 108 has multiple openings) through which the air flowing into the air-cooling circuit is capable of being discharged out of the air-cooling circuit (Par. 0079, duct 104 forms the outlet from the coolant path, outlet 12).
Marti and Strutt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, with the teachings of Strutt. This would produce a device that cools the interior components with air flow taken from outside the suction nozzle through the and discharges the air outside the nozzle, all without damaging the motor due to dirt (Par. 0080)
Regarding claim 4, Marti in view of Ho Seon and Strutt teaches the suction head according to claim 3, wherein the at least one air intake opening is provided on the lateral wall of the main body (Strutt, Par. 0079, vent 108 in the end wall 16e forms the inlet of the coolant path).
Regarding claim 5, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt teach the suction head according to claim 3.
Marti does not teach the wherein the at least one air intake opening is oriented substantially axially.
Strutt teaches wherein the at least one air intake opening is oriented substantially axially (See Annotated Figure 4)
PNG
media_image4.png
331
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4: Air Intake Opening
Marti and Strutt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt with the further teachings of Strutt. Doing so would produce the air intake opening on the upper portion of the end wall reducing the chance for air flow entering the vent entraining dirt resting on the surface (Par. 0080).
Regarding claim 6, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt teach the suction head of claim 2.
Marti does not teach the air-cooling circuit delimited at least partially by the drive motor so that, when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, the air circulating in the air-cooling circuit flows into or near the drive motor.
Strutt teaches the air-cooling circuit is delimited at least partially by the drive motor so that, when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, the air circulating in the air-cooling circuit flows into or near the drive motor (Paragraph 0085, “Since the air flow runs past the motor 34 between the sleeves 116, 118 as the air flow is directed past the motor it is prevented from contacting the motor” (air-cooling circuit flows near the drive circuit such that heat from the motor is absorbed by the air flow)). Additionally, air flow runs into the motor casing through the breather holes 64 through the motor, out of the motor through holes 86.
Marti and Strutt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified apparatus of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt, with the further teachings of Strutt. Doing so would allow for the air-cooling circuit to provide cooling to the motor by absorbing the heat from the motor (Par. 0085 and 0087)
Regarding claim 7, Marti, Ho Seon and Strutt teach the suction head according to claim 6.
Marti further teaches at least one air inlet opening provided on a peripheral wall of a motor casing of the drive motor, and at least one air outlet opening provided on an end wall of the motor casing.
Marti does not teach the air-cooling circuit that includes an air inlet opening provided on a motor casing of the drive motor and through which the air, circulated in the air-cooling circuit when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, is capable of entering the drive motor and an air outlet opening and through which the air, having entered the drive motor via the air inlet opening is capable of flowing outside of the drive motor.
Strutt teaches the air-cooling circuit that includes an air inlet opening provided on a motor casing (Par. 0087, casing 46) of the drive motor (Par. 0087, motor 34) and through which the air, circulated in the cooling path when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, is capable of entering the drive motor and an air outlet opening (Par. 0087, breather holes 86) and through which the air, having entered the drive motor via the air inlet opening (Par. 0087, breather holes 64) is capable of flowing outside of the drive motor via the holes (Par. 0087, holes 86) provided on the end wall of motor casing.
Marti and Strutt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt, with the further teachings of Strutt. Doing so would provide additional cooling of the motor (Par. 0087).
Regarding claim 8, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt teach the suction head according to claim 7. Marti further teaches the air inlet opening on the motor casing (motor compartment 22) is oriented substantially radially (See Annotated Figure 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
252
719
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5: Air Inlet Opening
Marti as modified fails to teach at least one air outlet opening of the motor casing is oriented substantially axially.
Strutt teaches the air outlet opening of the motor casing to be oriented substantially axially (See Annotated Figure 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
504
774
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6: Air Outlet Opening
Marti and Strutt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the device of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt, with the further teaching of Strutt’s air outlet location. Doing so would allow for the air to flow completely through the motor dissipating heat quickly, having a cooling effect (Par. 0087).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1), Strutt (US20190008349 A1), and Cao et al., (CN 114557652 A)
Regarding claim 9, Marti as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt teach the suction head according to claim 2.
Marti as modified fails to teach the bearing support delimiting air flow duct which partially forms air cooling circuit, the bearing extending around air flow duct.
Cao et al., teaches (Figure 5) and air flow duct (Par 0064, heat dissipation air flow duct inlet 41) that is surrounded by both the bearing (ar. 0081, bearing 35) and bearing support (Par. 0081, decorative sleeve 34) where the bearing support delimits air flow (See Annotated Figure 7).
PNG
media_image7.png
578
634
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7: Sleeved Support Delimiting Air Flow
Marti and Cao et al. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Marti, as modified with Ho Seon, Strutt with the further teachings of Cao et al. This would produce a device wherein the bearing support covers the bearing which is around the air flow duct and ultimately protects the bearing from any dirt or debris (Par. 0083).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1), Strutt (US20190008349 A1), and Woerwag (DE 19805900 C1).
Regarding claim 10, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt teach the suction head according to claim 2. Marti further teaches the motor compartment arranged at least partially in the motor housing; the drive motor being arranged at least partially in the motor compartment.
Marti fails to teach a motor compartment fastened to the bearing support.
Woerwag teaches (Figure 5) a structural unit (Description, structural unit 56) with the motor (Description, motor 30) fastened axially to a bearing cheek (Description, bearing cheek 28) by means of screws (Description, screws 57).
Marti and Woerwag are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified the device of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt, with the teachings of Woerwag. Doing so would allow for the structural unit to be secured axially (Description).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1), Strutt (US20190008349 A1), and Choi (US 20230248195 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt teach the suction head of claim 2.
Marti, as modified fails to teach an air cooling-circuit that includes a first circuit portion partially delimited by the drive motor and a second circuit portion partially delimited by the motor compartment and the brush body and located downstream of the first circuit portion.
Choi teaches (Figure 12 and 13) air cooling-circuit that includes a first circuit portion partially delimited by the driver (Par. 0060, driver 150) and a second circuit portion partially delimited by the driving compartment (See Annotated Figure 8) and the brush body (Figure 3, body of brush 140) and located downstream of the first circuit portion (See Annotated Figure 8).
PNG
media_image8.png
490
709
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8: Air Circuit Flow Pattern
Marti and Choi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the device of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt, with the further teaching of Choi’s air-cooling circuit. Doing so would allow for cooling of the inside components of the drum brush (par 0073).
Regarding claim 13, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, Strutt, and Choi teach the suction head according to claim 11.
Marti fails to teach wherein the air-cooling circuit is configured so that, when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, the air circulated in the first circuit portion flows at least partially inside the drive motor, and so that, the air circulated in the second circuit portion, flows at least partially between the motor compartment and the brush body.
Choi teaches wherein the air-cooling circuit is configured so that, when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, the air circulated in the first circuit portion flows at least partially inside the drive (Par. 0060, driver 150, See Annotated Figure 7), and so that, the air, circulated in the second circuit portion, flows at least partially between the drive compartment (See Annotated Figure 7) and the brush body (Par. 0067, drum brush 140).
Marti and Choi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the device of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt, with the further teaching of Choi’s air-cooling circuit. Doing so would allow for cooling of the inside components of the drum brush (Par. 0073).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1), Strutt (US20190008349 A1), Choi (US 20230248195 A1), and Nishimura et al., (US 6400048 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, Strutt, and Choi teach the suction head according to claim 11.
Marti fails to teach, wherein the air-cooling circuit is configured so that, when a vacuum is generated in the suction chamber, the air, circulated in the first circuit portion, flows into the first circuit portion moving away from the support ring, and flows into the second circuit portion towards the support ring.
Choi teaches when a vacuum is generated the air, circulated in the first circuit portion, flows into the first circuit portion flows into the second circuit portion (See Annotated Figure 8).
Marti and Choi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the device of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Strutt, with the further teaching of Choi’s air-cooling circuit. Doing so would allow for cooling of the inside components of the drum brush (par 0073).
Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, Strutt, and Choi, fail to teach the direction in which the air flows in regard to the support ring due to the configuration/location of the motor and support ring.
Nishimura et al. teaches a vacuum in which the vacuum head contains a motor and bearing structure, in which the motor is arranged in between the median vertical plane of the vacuum head and the bearing structure (See Annotated Figure 11).
Marti and Nishimura are considered analogous art of the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details and accessories of suction heads. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known teaching of the orientation/location of the motor of Nishimura to Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, Strutt, and Choi, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Nishimura to the teaching of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, Strutt, and Choi, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate different locations of the internal components. Further, applying the teaching of the orientation/location of the motor to the air cooling circuit of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, Strutt, and Choi, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would teach the necessary direction in which the air flows in regard to the support ring for effective air cooling of the internal components.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1) and Bian (CN 114847793A).
Regarding claim 15, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon teaches the suction head according to claim 1, wherein the support ring is secured in rotation to the brush body.
Marti fails to teach the support ring forms an impeller provided with stream guide fins distributed about a central axis of the support ring, each pair of adjacent stream guide fins partially delimiting a respective through hole, and the support ring, forming the impeller, is configured to generate a vacuum within the at least one through hole when the drive motor is running and drives in rotation the rotating brush.
Bian teaches (Figure 4) a rolling brush assembly wherein a pair of impellers (impeller 4), bearing (bearing 6), bearing mounting seat (5) are installed on the brush body. The brush body has an end defining the bearing mounting cavity (12). As the impeller rotates, external air flowing through the air hole flows to the impeller, which limits air flow from flowing into the bearing mounting cavity and into the allows the air to flow into the middle part of the brush body. The impeller has stream guide fins (See Annotated figure 9).
PNG
media_image9.png
269
388
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9: Impeller
Marti and Bian are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, with the further teachings of Bian. Doing so would produce the brush body supporting structure that functions as an impeller with stream guide fins to delimit air flow to specific regions of the brush body and not the mounting cavity (Description of Figures 3-4)
Regarding claim 16, Marti as modified by Ho Seon and Bian teach the suction head according to claim 15.
Marti fails to teach each stream guide fin having an axial dimension and a radial dimension which is smaller than the respective axial dimensions.
Bian teaches each stream guide fin having an axial dimension and a radial dimension which is smaller than the respective axial dimensions (See Annotated Figure 10).
PNG
media_image10.png
310
427
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 10: Stream Guide Fin Dimension
Marti and Bian are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, with the further teachings of Bian. Doing so would produce the brush body supporting structure that functions as an impeller with stream guide fins to delimit air flow to specific regions of the brush body (Description of Figures 3-4)
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti in view of Ho Seon and Quinn et al., (WO 2015157435 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon teaches the suction head of claim of claim 1.
Marti does not teach a fastening device configured to fasten the bearing to the support ring.
Quinn et al., teaches a vacuum cleaner including a belt tensioner, wherein members (Par. 0038, members 140) formed on the inner annular support surface of the pulley designed to engage and retain the bearing (Par. 0038, bearing 132). Members are projections or tabs formed on the inner surface of bore 128. With each projection including a chamfered surface to help snap-fit the bearing (Par. 0039).
Marti and Quinn et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, with the further teachings of Quinn et al. Doing so would produce a device wherein the bearing and the annular support surrounding the bearing are secured and the support surface would be unable to move off of the bearing (Par. 0038)
Regarding claim 19, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon and Quinn et al., teaches the suction head according to claim 18.
Marti further teaches wherein the support ring (Abstract, support member 34 is elastically deformable).
Marti fails to teach the fastening tab to be elastically deformable and on the support ring, the at least one fastening tab being configured to cooperate with the bearing so as to fasten the bearing to the support ring.
Quinn et al., teaches a vacuum cleaner including a belt tensioner, wherein members (Par. 0038, members 140) formed on the inner annular support surface of the pulley designed to engage and retain the bearing (Par. 0038, bearing 132). Members are projections or tabs formed on the inner surface of bore 128. With each projection including a chamfered surface to help snap-fit the bearing (Par. 0039).
Marti and Quinn et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, with the further teachings of Quinn et al. Doing so would produce a device wherein the bearing and the annular support on the inside of the pulley(annular support is elastically deformable as taught by Marti) surrounding the bearing are secured and the support surface would be unable to move off of the bearing (Par. 0038)
Regarding claim 20, Marti in view of Ho Seon teaches the suction head according to claim 1,
Marti further teaches wherein the bearing is a rolling bearing (“According to one embodiment, the pivot is formed by a bearing, such as a ball bearing.”), and includes an inner ring fastened to the bearing support (cleaning unit 11 comprises a fixing member 43, such as a fixing washer which is, fixed to the rotary support 28, and more particularly support portion 32…The fixing) and extending around the bearing support.
Marti does not teach an outer ring fastened to the support ring, the support ring extending around the outer ring of the bearing.
Quinn et al., teaches a vacuum cleaner including a belt tensioner, wherein members (Par. 0038, members 140) formed on the inner annular support surface of the pulley designed to engage and retain the bearing (Par. 0038, bearing 132). Members are projections or tabs formed on the inner surface of bore 128. With each projection including a chamfered surface to help snap-fit the bearing (Par. 0039).
Marti and Quinn et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of details or accessories of suction cleaners. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, with the further teachings of Quinn et al. Doing so would produce a device wherein the bearing and the annular support on the inside of the pulley surrounding the bearing are secured and the support surface would be unable to move off of the bearing (Par. 0038)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti (FR 3109515 A1) in view of Ho Seon (KR 100438292 B1) and Nishimura et al. (US 6400048 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon teaches the suction head according to claim 1.
Marti further teaches wherein the motor is positioned off-center relative to a median vertical plane of the suction head and is arranged between the median vertical plane of the suction head and the support ring. Marti fails to teach the motor arranged between the median vertical plane of the suction head and the support ring.
Nishimura et al. teaches a vacuum in which the vacuum head contains a motor and bearing structure, in which the motor is arranged in between the median vertical plane of the vacuum head and the bearing structure (See Annotated Figure 11).
PNG
media_image11.png
604
789
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 11: Motor Orientation/Location
Marti and Nishimura are considered analogous art of the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of details and accessories of suction heads. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known teaching of the orientation/location of the motor of Nishimura to Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Nishimura to the teaching of Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate different locations of the internal components. Further, applying the teaching of the orientation/location of the motor to Marti, as modified by Ho Seon, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient pathway for air cooling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17 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 present invention pertains to a suction head. It is the examiner’s opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing; the inner wall of the support ring including at least one radial through opening, extending in the radial direction, opening into the at least one through hole provided on the support ring located facing the bearing in addition to the rest of the claimed limitations 1 and 17.
The closes prior art consists of Marti (FR-3109515-A1), and Ho Seon (KR-100438292-B1).
Regarding claim 17, Marti, as modified by Ho Seon teaches the suction head according to any one of claim 1. Marti further teaches the support ring includes an inner wall which is generally cylindrical and which extends about and in contact with the bearing.
Marti fails to teach the inner wall of the support ring including at least one radial through opening, extending in the radial direction, opening into the at least one through hole provided on the support ring located facing the bearing.
Ho Seon teaches the at least one through hole (cooling holes 20) in a bearing supporter (Bearing supporter 15) which is a cooling hole to aid air flowing into the cleaner motor for heat dissipation.
Thus, the examiner notes that the modification of Marti, with the teaching of Ho Seon, fails to teach the necessary structure of the inner wall of the support ring including at least one radial through opening, extending in the radial direction, opening into the at least one through hole provided on the support ring located facing the bearing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 20050138765 A1) teaches a Drum-Brush and a Vacuum Cleaner Having the Same
Genn (US 8776311 B2) teaches a cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner
Mayes (US 2005/0160555 A1) teaches a Vacuum Cleaner with Twin Independently Driven Agitators)
Dyson et al., (KR 20140123091 A) teaches a Cleaner Head for a Vacuum Cleaner
Yang et al., (US 20180303304 A1) teaches a vacuum cleaner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S LUNDY whose telephone number is (571)270-0752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 5712724475. 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.
/Daniel Lundy/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
9/25/2026
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights