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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (WO 2016096037), and further in view of Thorne et al. (US 20160220082).
Regarding Claims 1, 2: Schaller teaches a suction head comprising:
a main body (element 4) comprising a lower face (Fig. 1b) configured to be oriented towards a surface to be cleaned and a suction mouth (elements 18, 20) opening into the lower face of the main body, the main body delimiting a suction chamber (Fig. 2a, elements 26, 28) fluidly connected to the suction mouth;
a rotating brush (Fig. 3a) housed in the suction chamber, the rotating brush comprising:
a brush body which has a central longitudinal axis and configured to be driven in rotation in a predetermined direction of rotation and about an axis of rotation substantially coaxial with the central longitudinal axis of the brush body (pg. 4, ll. 16-18);
a row of bristles (elements 27) provided on an outer peripheral surface of the brush body and extending over at least a part of the length of the brush body; and
a cleaning blade (element 29) provided on an outer peripheral surface of the brush body and extending over at least a part of the length of the brush body wherein the cleaning blade is angularly offset from the row of bristles relative to the central longitudinal axis of the brush body by an offset angle and is located at a rear of the row of bristles relative to the predetermined direction of the brush body (see Fig. 3a); and
a rotation device (Fig. 4, elements 38, 42) configured to rotate the brush body about the axis of rotation.
It is noted that the prior art range of 1500-6500 rpm overlaps the claimed range of 2000-8000 rpm. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Schaller does not expressly disclose the brush diameter. However, Thorne teaches a similar suction head comprising a brush having a diameter of about 54 mm [0063], which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schaller with a brush having a diameter within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of efficiently cleaning a surface.
Schaller does not expressly disclose the offset angle or the ratio thereof to a tangential speed of the row of bristles as claimed. However, both the placement of the cleaning blade and the speed to which the bristles travel along the surface are variables which affect the cleaning efficiency. The cleaning blade is known to provide means of agitation to assist with loosening dirt, for example. The tangential speed also affect debris movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the offset angle to achieve the claimed ratio when traveling at the claimed rotation speed in order to optimize the cleaning effect of the suction head.
Regarding Claim 3: Schaller and Thorne teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. A suction head as described by Schaller in view of Thorne has a diameter within the range as claimed and is capable of rotating at rotational speeds, as claimed. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The suction head of Schaller and Thorne is capable of achieving tangential speeds within the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 4-6: Schaller and Thorne teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Schaller further teaches wherein the row of bristles extends helically about the central longitudinal axis of the brush body and the cleaning blade
Regarding Claim 7: Schaller further teaches the cleaning blade is elastically deformable (pg. 8, line 14).
Regarding Claim 8: Schaller further teaches wherein the bristles of the row of bristles project from the outer peripheral surface of the brush body by a first projection distance, and the cleaning blade by a second projection distance smaller than the first projection distance (pg. 8, ll. 19-20).
Regarding Claim 11: Schaller further teaches wherein the rotating brush includes a plurality of cleaning blades and a plurality of rows of bristles, and wherein the plurality of rows of bristles and cleaning blades are alternately positioned around the periphery of the brush body (Fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 12: Schaller teaches a method for controlling a suction head comprising the steps of :
providing a suction head comprising:
a main body (element 4) comprising a lower face (Fig. 1b) configured to be oriented towards a surface to be cleaned and a suction mouth (elements 18, 20) opening into the lower face of the main body, the main body delimiting a suction chamber (Fig. 2a, elements 26, 28) fluidly connected to the suction mouth;
a rotating brush (Fig. 3a) housed in the suction chamber, the rotating brush comprising a brush body which has a central longitudinal axis and configured to be driven in rotation in a predetermined direction of rotation and about an axis of rotation substantially coaxial with the central longitudinal axis of the brush body (pg. 4, ll. 16-18), a row of bristles (elements 27) provided on an outer peripheral surface of the brush body and extending over at least a part of the length of the brush body, and a cleaning blade (element 29) provided on an outer peripheral surface of the brush body and extending over at least a part of the length of the brush body, wherein the cleaning blade is angularly offset from the row of bristles relative to the central longitudinal axis of the brush body by an offset angle and is located at a rear of the row of bristles relative to the predetermined direction of the brush body (see Fig. 3a); and
a rotation device (Fig. 4, elements 38, 42) configured to rotate the brush body about the axis of rotation; and
rotating the rotation device between 1500-6500 rpm (pg. 6, ll. 25-26), which overlaps the claimed range of 2000-8000 rpm. Thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Schaller does not expressly disclose the brush diameter. However, Thorne teaches a similar suction head comprising a brush having a diameter of about 54 mm [0063], which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schaller with a brush having a diameter within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of efficiently cleaning a surface.
Schaller does not expressly disclose the offset angle or the ratio thereof to a tangential speed of the row of bristles as claimed. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Both the placement of the cleaning blade and the speed to which the bristles travel along the surface are variables which affect the cleaning efficiency. The cleaning blade is known to provide means of agitation to assist with loosening dirt, for example. The tangential speed of the bristles also affect debris movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the offset angle to achieve the claimed ratio when traveling at the claimed rotation speed in order to optimize the cleaning effect of the suction head.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (WO 2016096037) and Thorne et al. (US 20160220082) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Muir (EP 3646756).
Regarding Claims 9-10: Schaller and Thorne teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Schaller does not expressly disclose a fastening part fastened to the brush body. However, Muir teaches a suction head comprising a cleaning blade (Fig. 5, element 306) on a brush roll, wherein the cleaning blade includes a fastening part (e.g., base of element 306) fastened or removable fastened to the brush body, and a cleaning part (e.g., tip of element 306) extending from the fastening part, wherein the cleaning part is oriented substantially radially relative to the central longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schaller and Thorne with a cleaning blade having a cleaning blade with a removable fastening part in order to allow the cleaning blade to be removed suggested by Muir.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 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, 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights