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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2014/0373402) in view of Grab (US 2023/0063470).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a smoothing appliance (fig. 1, apparatus 100) comprising:
a portable housing (fig. 1) having a handle (fig. 1, pipe 3 and rear portion of element 4) and a smoothing head (fig. 1, front portion of element 4) connected to the handle, the portable housing further comprising:
a steam circuit comprising a steam generator (para. [0052], a steam generating device is arranged internally to mount 1);
an air intake circuit (fig. 2, dust collection casing 10, a centrifugal fan formed by centrifugal impellers 11 and a fan motor 12) extending between at least one intake port (fig. 2, air suction holes 9) and at least one air intake vent (fig. 2, motor air vents 14) and comprising a fan (fig. 2, para. [0053], impellers 11) configured to be rotated by a motor (fig. 2, para. [0053], motor 12), the fan and the motor being integrally disposed in the smoothing head (fig. 2);
wherein the smoothing head comprises a treatment side (fig. 2, the outside of the ironing panel 7) configured to be placed opposite a fabric item to be smoothed, the treatment side comprising at least one steam vent (fig. 2, steam ejection holes 8) connected to the steam circuit (para. [0053]) and the at least one intake port forming an intake air inlet of the air intake circuit (para. [0053]).
Zhang does not clearly teach the smoothing head comprises an air cooling circuit for the motor extending between at least one cooling air inlet port and at least one cooling air vent disposed in the smoothing head, the cooling circuit being separate and distinct from the air intake circuit to prevent steam-laden air from the air intake circuit from entering the motor.
However, in the same field of suction and steaming device, Grab teaches the device comprises an air cooling circuit (fig. 5, cooling air inlet 88 and cooling air outlet 86) for the motor (fig. 6) extending between at least one cooling air inlet port (fig. 5, inlet 88) and at least one cooling air vent (fig. 5, outlet 86) disposed in the housing for motor, the cooling circuit being separate and distinct from the air intake circuit (fig. 5, the cooling air inlet 88 and cooling air outlet 86 are separate and distinct from the suction nozzle 54 and the exhaust vent 52) to prevent steam-laden air from the air intake circuit from entering the motor (fig. 5, para. [0031], [0035]-[0038], the cleaning liquid includes steam; para. [0004], the vacuum motor cooling pathway is separate from the recovery pathway; para. [0023], the spent cleaning fluid is stored in the recovery tank 22 by the recovery pathway; therefore, the steam-laden air from the suction nozzle is prevented from entering the motor).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the smoothing head of Zhang with the air cooling circuit for the motor as taught by Grab so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Zhang-Grab does not teach the cooling circuit comprises a rotatably mounted propeller for circulating air entering through the cooling air inlet port towards the cooling air vent.
However, Grab teaches the cooling circuit comprises a rotatably mounted propeller (fig. 6, a cooling fan 106) for circulating air entering through the cooling air inlet port towards the cooling air vent (para. [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Zhang-Grab with a rotatably mounted propeller as taught by Grab for the benefit of allowing cooling air for the vacuum motor to be drawn into the housing by the cooling fan (Grab, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches the propeller is axial helical centrifugal or centrifugal (Grab, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches the motor extends longitudinally along an axis from a first end to a second end, the first end being closer to the treatment side than the second end (Zhang, fig. 2).
The modified structure Zhang-Grab does not teach the propeller is disposed at the second end of the motor.
However, Grab teaches in figs. 9-10, the cooling fan is disposed behind the brush motor in the longitudinal axis of the housing (para. [0062], the brush motor cooling flow path B can share a common cooling fan 106).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to move the position of the cooling fan to the second end of the motor of the modified structure Zhang-Grab as suggested in figs. 9-10 for the benefit of allowing cooling air for the vacuum motor to be drawn into the housing by the cooling fan. Rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches the smoothing head comprises a rear side opposite the treatment side and a lateral side extending between the treatment side and the rear side.
The modified structure Zhang-Grab does not clearly teach the at least one cooling air inlet port is disposed on the lateral side and the at least one cooling air vent is disposed on the rear side.
However, Grab teaches the at least one cooling air inlet port is disposed on the lateral side and the at least one cooling air vent is disposed on the rear side (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Zhang-Grab with the teaching that the at least one cooling air inlet port is disposed on the lateral side and the at least one cooling air vent is disposed on the rear side as taught by Grab so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches the air intake circuit comprises the at least one intake vent (Zhang, fig. 2, vents 14) disposed on the rear side (Zhang, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Zhang-Grab does not teach the at least one cooling air vent in the cooling circuit opens into the air intake circuit at the at least one air intake vent in the air intake circuit.
However, Grab teaches in figs. 9-10, the at least one cooling air vent in the cooling circuit opens into the air intake circuit at the air intake vent in the air intake circuit (figs. 9-10, the cooling air outlet 120 is next to the air outlet 52).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Zhang-Grab with the teaching that the at least one cooling air vent in the cooling circuit opens into the air intake circuit at the at least one air intake vent in the air intake circuit as taught by Grab so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Zhang-Grab does not teach the cooling circuit comprises a plurality of cooling air inlet ports and/or a plurality of cooling air vents.
However, Grab teaches the cooling circuit comprises a plurality of cooling air inlet ports and/or a plurality of cooling air vents (fig. 6, there are at least two cooling air inlet ports and a plurality of cooling air vents 86).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Zhang-Grab with the teaching that the cooling circuit comprises a plurality of cooling air inlet ports and/or a plurality of cooling air vents as taught by Grab so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches the portable housing comprises a receiving chamber comprising an inner wall defining an enclosure in which the motor is disposed (Zhang, fig. 2).
The modified structure Zhang-Grab does not teach the receiving chamber comprising blades extending from the inner wall to form at least one air intake flow channel between the at least one air intake port and the at least one air intake vent and to form at least one cooling pipe to enable cooling air entering through the at least one cooling air inlet port to flow into the enclosure.
However, Grab teaches the receiving chamber comprising blades (annotated fig. 6 below, blades formed by parts of element 60 and element 106) extending from the inner wall to form at least one air intake flow channel between the at least one air intake port and the air intake vent and to form at least one cooling pipe to enable cooling air entering through the at least one cooling air inlet port to flow into the enclosure.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Zhang-Grab with the teaching of Grab that the receiving chamber comprising blades extending from the inner wall to form at least one air intake flow channel between the at least one air intake port and the air intake vent and to form at least one cooling pipe to enable cooling air entering through the at least one cooling air inlet port to flow into the enclosure so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches each blade is hollow so as to define the at least one cooling pipe (Grab, annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches the at least one air intake channel is defined between two blades (Grab, annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Zhang-Grab teaches each blade is curved to direct intake air flowing between the at least one intake port and the at least one air intake vent (Grab, annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Zhang-Grab does not teach the air intake circuit and the cooling circuit are configured so that intake air flows in a direction orthogonal to a cooling air flow direction in the receiving chamber.
However, Grab teaches the air intake circuit and the cooling circuit are configured so that intake air flows in a direction orthogonal to a cooling air flow direction in the receiving chamber (annotated fig. 6 below).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Zhang-Grab with the teaching of Grab that the air intake circuit and the cooling circuit are configured so that intake air flows in a direction orthogonal to a cooling air flow direction in the receiving chamber so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
PNG
media_image2.png
394
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Grab fails to teach the motor and the cooling circuit located within the smoothing head (remarks, page 5, section A).
In response, the Applicant's arguments are against the references individually; one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Zhang teaches the fan and the motor being integrally disposed in the smoothing head. Zhang does not teach the smoothing head comprises an air cooling circuit for the motor. However, in the same field of suction and steaming device, Grab teaches the device comprises an air cooling circuit (fig. 5, cooling air inlet 88 and cooling air outlet 86) for the motor (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the smoothing head of Zhang with the air cooling circuit for the motor as taught by Grab so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
The Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine and Grab is not analogous art (remarks, page 6, section B).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Zhang and Grab teach a device comprises a motor, a fan to generate a suction effect at a soft surface. Zhang does not teach the device has an air cooling circuit for the motor. However, Grab teaches the device comprises an air cooling circuit for the motor (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the smoothing head of Zhang with the air cooling circuit for the motor as taught by Grab so that air is drawn through the interior of the device in order to cool the suction motor (Grab, para. [0002]).
In response to applicant's argument that Grab is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Grab teaches a device includes a housing, a fluid delivery system, a motor, a fan to generate a suction effect and a recovery system; wherein the fluid includes steam (para. [0031]), and a motor cooling pathway is separate from a recovery pathway (para. [0004]). Therefore, Grab is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
The Applicant argues that the cooling circuit’s steam-protection function is absent from the cited art (remarks, page 6, section C).
In response, Grab teaches the cleaning liquid includes steam (para. [0031], [0035]-[0038]); the vacuum motor cooling pathway is separate from the recovery pathway (fig. 5, para. [0004]); the spent cleaning fluid is stored in the recovery tank (22) by the recovery pathway (para. [0023]); therefore, Grab suggests the steam-laden air from the suction nozzle is prevented from entering the motor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights