DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1 and 5 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. The limitation effectively indicates that the roller formed a boundary of the suction chamber, which contradicts the limitation of claim 1 that the roller is mounted at a location forward or rearward of the suction chamber (which effectively requires a space therebetween). As best understood by the examiner based on the structure shown in the drawings, the limitation of claim 1 will be considered to be intended to define that the roller is mounted at a forward or rearward end of the suction chamber, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (12,364,375).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Kim discloses a vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1) comprising a cleaner head (100) for a vacuum cleaner comprising: a main body having a suction chamber (internal portion between cover 111 and inlet 100B); and a roller (300) rotatably mounted to the main body at a forward end of the suction chamber, wherein the roller is configured to rotate in a first direction when the cleaner head is maneuvered over a cleaning surface in a forward direction (Fig. 14; Col. 15, line 61-Col. 16, line 14), and is prevented from rotating in a second opposite direction when the cleaner head is maneuvered over the cleaning surface in the rearward direction (Fig. 15; Col. 16, lines 20-48).
Regarding claim 5, Kim further discloses that the suction chamber is delimited by the roller (roller is positioned at a front end of the suction chamber in the same manner as the applicant’s disclosed invention).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses that the cleaner head comprises an agitator (200) rotatably mounted to the main body and a drive assembly (Col. 7, lines 18-20) for driving the agitator, and the agitator rotates independently of the roller (due to the agitator being driven by the drive assembly, and the roller being driven by the wheels 500).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses that a diameter of the agitator is at least twice that of the roller (as seen in the drawings; although not disclosed as being drawn to scale, the relative dimensions clearly show the agitator to be well over twice the diameter of the roller, wherein relative structure can be relied upon regardless of scale).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further discloses that the roller is mounted to the main body by a clutch bearing (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses that the cleaner head comprises a wheel (500) mounted to the main body, the wheel is free to rotate relative to the main body in the first direction and the second direction, and the roller is mounted to the wheel by a clutch bearing (500).
Regarding claim 12, Kim further discloses that he roller is mounted at a first end to the main body by a first clutch bearing, and the roller is mounted at a second end to the wheel by a second clutch bearing (Col. 8, lines 17-21, indicating that each wheel module 500 includes a one-way bearing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (12,364,375).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses that the agitator is driven by the drive assembly, which would obviously be driven when the cleaner head is maneuvered over the cleaning surface in both the forward direction and the rearward direction, based on the general knowledge of driven agitators in the art, which most commonly drive in a single direction regardless of direction of movement of the head, along with a lack of any disclosure from Kim that would suggest otherwise. Thus, the examiner effectively hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known for common driven agitators in suction cleaners to be driven when the cleaner head is maneuvered over the cleaning surface in both the forward direction and the rearward direction.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (12,364,375) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Pruiett et al. (12,035,873).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses that the roller will contact the surface to be cleaned to either allow debris to pass thereunder (when rolling while the head is moving in the forward direction) or to prevent debris from passing underneath (when stationary relative to the head while the head is moving in the rearward direction). However, Kim fails to disclose that the roller is configured to form a seal with the surface. Pruiett discloses another similar vacuum cleaner (Figs. 17-19) with a cleaner head, also having a roller positioned at the front of the suction chamber, and teaches that the roller similarly is a one-way roller (“for unidirectional rotation”; Col. 13, lines 17-29) to allow debris to pass underneath when rotating as the head is moved in a first direction, and will function as a squeegee to wipe the floor when stationary relative to the head while the head is moving in the rearward direction, teaching that the roller preferably forms a seal between the head and the floor to effectively wipe the floor to prevent puddles on the rearward stroke (Col. 13, lines 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the roller of Kim (including size and shape) to also form a seal with the cleaning surface, as taught by Pruiett, to function as a squeegee during the rearward motion to collect any fluids that may be present on the surface being cleaned.
Regarding claim 3, Pruiett further discloses that the roller is preferably made from plaint, flexible or resilient materials, to bend to the contour of the surface (Col. 13, lines 39-48), which will be understood to assist in forming a seal against the surface, as discussed for claim 2. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the exterior of the roller of Kim with a similar structure and material as taught by Pruiett, to provide the seal as discussed above. Further, the materials disclosed as plaint, flexible or resilient materials are understood to be equivalent to the claimed compressible materials, with the current application citing rubber as a potential compressible material, and Pruiett disclosing different types of rubber as being plaint, flexible or resilient materials.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (12,364,375) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Yoo (2010/0107359).
Kim discloses the cleaner head with a roller, as discussed supra, but fails to disclose that the roller is configured to move vertically relative to the main body. Yoo discloses another similar vacuum cleaner with a cleaner head, also having a roller positioned at the front of the suction chamber, and teaches that the roller is mounted for vertical movement when the front of the cleaner head is pressed against a wall surface, to increase cleaning efficiency along the wall surface (paragraph 10) by moving the roller away from the airflow path between the wall and suction chamber and that the roller is biased toward a lower position (via spring 233) to retain the roller in the lower, floor contacting position for normal cleaning, unless pressed against a wall surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the roller of Kim with a similar mount to allow for vertical movement of the roller vertically relative to the main body between a lower position (when away from a wall) and an upper position (when pressed against a wall), and the roller is biased to the lower position, as taught by Yoo, to improve cleaning efficiency along a wall surface.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (12,364,375) as applied to claims 1 and 6 and in view of Takemoto et al. (6,237,188).
Kim discloses the cleaner head with a roller and agitator, as discussed supra, but fails to disclose that the roller may be positioned rearward of the agitator. Takemoto discloses another similar vacuum cleaner with a cleaner head, also having an agitator (104) and a roller (141) positioned at the front of the suction chamber, and teaches that the roller may also be provided at the rear of the suction chamber (Col. 19, lines 50-54) to effectively provide the same function as the front roller to the rear of the suction chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide another roller to the cleaning head of Kim, at a position rearward of the agitator, as taught by Takemoto, which would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a similar and opposite function of the front roller, by rolling relative to the cleaner head when moved rearward, to allow debris to pass under the roller, but remain stationary relative to the cleaner head when moved forward to push debris toward the suction chamber.
Conclusion
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 12 June 2026
Prosecution Insights