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 .
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.
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 1-9 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Exemplary errors include, but are not limited to:
Grammatically problematic terminology such as “wherein the rotor is formed with the opening part through which foreign substances are sucked in and the blocking part through which foreign substances are blocked by crossing, which are formed in an intersecting manner, so that the openings are formed consecutively” in claim 2;
“the discharge hole through which foreign substances introduced from the opening surface formed simultaneously with the opening part of the above rotor and a slit are discharged” in claim 4;
“foreign substances introduced through the opening surface in which the opening part of the rotor and a slit are formed simultaneously are guided to an intake pipe via the drum casing” in claim 6; and
“formed with a body surface filled inside” in claim 9.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rotating rotor” and claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation “the above rotor”. It is unclear whether these refer to the “the rotor” that was previously introduced or different rotors having special functions.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the exposed opening surface to the slit”. Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites the limitations “wherein the slit exposes an opening surface” and “the opening surface of the slit”. It is unclear if these refer to the same limitation.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the openings”. It is unclear which openings this limitation refers to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the through hole formed on the side” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the opening part on the opposite surface of the center”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penner (DE 102016122456 A1).
1. Penner teaches a vacuum cleaner head (1) comprising:
a rotor (10) including an opening part (12) having a spiral outer periphery (see Penner figs. 3-5) and through which foreign substances are sucked (See Penner fig. 5 and Penner Translation [0008] and [0013]); and
a drum casing (3) including a hollow interior into which the rotor is inserted (rotor 10 is positioned inside housing 3, see Penner fig. 3), an open slit axially formed on a bottom surface (slot defined by edges 14 is formed on a bottom surface 4, see Penner figs. 5) to allow foreign substances of a surface to be cleaned to be introduced, and a cover surface (body 9) surrounding the rotor (see Penner fig. 5),
wherein the slit exposes an opening surface by the opening part of the rotor and a blocking surface by a blocking part that blocks foreign substances, so that the opening surface and the blocking surface are axially arranged simultaneously (at any given time, the roller has at least one suction opening 6 and blocking parts defined by an outer portion of the roller 13,15 such that it the suction opening only occupies a portion of the surface, see Penner figs. 2, 4, and 5; and Penner Translation [0027]), and
wherein the opening surface of the slit is axially variable by the rotating rotor (opening moves in direction 37, see Penner fig. 4 and Penner Translation [0026]).
2. Penner teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 1, wherein the rotor is formed with the opening part through which foreign substances are sucked in and the blocking part through which foreign substances are blocked by crossing, which are formed in an intersecting manner, so that the openings are formed consecutively (openings 6,6a and blocking portions 13,15 therebetween follow a helical pattern, see Penner fig. 4).
3. Penner teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 1, wherein the slit of the drum casing sucks in foreign substances only from the opening surface (openings 6 are the only inlets, see Penner figs. 4-5 and Penner Translation [0012]-[0014]).
4. Penner teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 1, wherein the drum casing is formed with a discharge hole (hole on upper portion of 3, see Penner fig. 5) on a upper part, the discharge hole through which foreign substances introduced from the opening surface formed simultaneously with the opening part of the above rotor and a slit are discharged (substances from 6 are output through hole located above 10, see Penner fig. 5).
5. Penner teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 1, wherein as the rotor rotates, the exposed opening surface to the slit moves horizontally and is perpendicular to a direction of movement of the vacuum cleaner head (6 moves in direction 37 perpendicular to a working direction 5 of the head, see Penner fig 4).
8. Penner teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 1, wherein the rotor is formed with a hollow interior so that foreign substances move through the through hole formed on the side (rotor may be hollow, see Penner Translation [0027]).
9. Penner teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 1, wherein the blocking part that blocks foreign substances in the rotor is formed with a body surface filled inside, and the introduced foreign substance passes through the opening surface, passes between the body surfaces, and penetrates the opening part on the opposite surface of the center (airflow is blocked in portions between inlets 6 such that the only air flow passes through 6, around the spiral channel 12, and out the outlet on a back side of the roller, see Penner figs. 4-5).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 10568482, "Sun").
6. Penner teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 1, but teaches that the drum casing is integral to the brush head, and consequently does not teach that the cleaner head further comprises a roller neck into which the drum casing is inserted and foreign substances introduced through the opening surface in which the opening part of the rotor and a slit are formed simultaneously are guided to an intake pipe via the drum casing.
However, Sun teaches the concept of a vacuum cleaner head (112) comprising a removable cleaning module (120) comprising one of several kinds of cleaning members (Sun figs. 3-7 and 3:22-56), and wherein the cleaner head comprises a roller neck into which a drum casing is inserted (cleaning module 120 including mounting frame 130 is inserted into cleaning member mounting recess 110a, see Sun figs. 7-10 and 4:37-5:19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the vacuum cleaner head of Penner according to the teachings of modular cleaning members from Sun such that it further comprised a roller neck into which the drum casing is inserted and foreign substances introduced through the opening surface in which the opening part of the rotor and a slit are formed simultaneously are guided to an intake pipe via the drum casing, as doing so would allow for a user to replace a dirty cleaning member without having to touch the contaminated part of the cleaning member (Sun 17:60-18:2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner in view of Sun as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Brunner (US 11439284).
7. Penner as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner head of claim 6, but does not teach that the roller neck includes a side passage formed longer than the drum casing through which foreign substances pass.
However, Brunner teaches a vacuum cleaner head (10) comprising a rotor (125) including an opening part (315) having a spiral outer periphery and through which foreign substances are sucked (Brunner figs. 6 and 9), wherein the cleaner head includes a side passage extending beyond an edge of the rotor (800 is beyond edge of 315, see Brunner fig. 6), and through which the dirty air flows (see Brunner fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the vacuum cleaner head of Penner as modified according to the teachings of Brunner regarding a flow path for a dirty air flow such that the roller neck includes a side passage formed longer than the drum casing through which foreign substances pass, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of art-recognized flow path for air from a suction roller having a spiral intake path for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steeman (US PGPub 2024/0023772), Akihito (JP S63264030), Song (US 8898859), Ultraman (DE 202016102469), and Voigt (DE 4035411) teach relevant vacuum cleaner structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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 (571)-272-4475. 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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights