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
Claims 1, 5, 15-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“first direction” (claim 1, line 5) should be changed to --a first direction--;
“the second set of tines are timed” (claim 1, line 9) should be changed to --the second set of tines is timed--;
“at least of a portion” (claim 5, line 3) should be changed to --at least a portion--;
“first direction” (claim 15, line 7) should be changed to --a first direction--;
“the second set of tines are timed” (claim 15, line 11) should be changed to --the second set of tines is timed--;
“and comprising an air turbine” (claim 16, line 2) should be changed to --and an air turbine--;
“and first brushroll” (claim 17, lines 2-3) should be changed to --and the first brushroll--;
“in same direction” (claim 17, line 3) should be changed to --in a same direction--;
“first direction” (claim 20, line 12) should be changed to --a first direction--;
“the second set of tines are timed” (claim 20, line 16) should be changed to --the second set of tines is timed--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the second set of tines are timed to interfere with the first set of tines as the first and second brushrolls counterrotate to pull hair into the air path above the first and second brushrolls.” (lines 16-18). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does the “air path” refer to the “working air path” or the “tool air path”? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as referring to the “tool air path”.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Verhasselt in view of Tran and Collaro
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200196818 A1 (“Verhasselt”) in view of US 8533905 B1 (“Tran”) and GB 642819 A (“Collaro”).
Verhasselt pertains to a vacuum cleaner (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9B). Tran pertains to a vacuum cleaner (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). Collaro pertains to a rotary brush for vacuum cleaners (Figs. 1-5; 1:13-21). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Verhasselt discloses a cleaning head for a vacuum cleaner (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0025, cleaning head 12 for vacuum cleaner 10), comprising:
a housing having a brushroll chamber and defining an air path (Figs. 1-6, housing 60 with brushroll chamber (near reference 36, 38 in Fig. 2) with a defined air path that includes passing through the bottom opening of housing 60, near reference 64, and through element 52);
an inlet into the brushroll chamber, the inlet in fluid communication with the air path (Figs. 1-6, inlet at the bottom opening of housing 60 (near references 30 and 32 in Fig. 2) is in fluid communication with the air path that includes passing near reference 64 and through element 52);
a first brushroll mounted in the brushroll chamber and configured to rotate about a first axis in [a] first direction (Figs. 1-6, first brushroll 30 is mounted in the brushroll chamber and rotates about axis 36 in a clockwise direction in Fig. 2);
and a second brushroll mounted in the brushroll chamber and configured to rotate about a second axis in a second direction that is counter to the first direction (Figs. 1-6, second brushroll 32 is mounted in the brushroll chamber and rotates about axis 38 in a counterclockwise direction in Fig. 2);
wherein the second set of tines [is] timed to interfere with the first set of tines as the first and second brushrolls counterrotate to pull hair into the air path above the first and second brushrolls (Figs. 1-6, the respective bristles of brushrolls 30, 32 are timed to interfere with each other (see Fig. 2) as the brushrolls 30, 32 counterrotate against each other and are capable of the recited function; Examiner does not interpret this limitation as a method step of operating the cleaning head).
Verhasselt does not explicitly disclose:
the first brushroll including a first set of tines,
the second brushroll including a second set of tines.
However, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious this claim.
Tran discloses a brushroll including a set of tines (Figs. 1-8, brushroll 40 includes rectangular tines 78).
Collaro discloses a brushroll including a set of tines (Figs. 1-4, brushroll as shown has rectangular, rubber tines (at reference 11)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Tran and Collaro with Verhasselt by modifying the bristles of Verhasselt’s brushrolls to tines. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is a design choice that considers the type of agitator construction factoring cost, application (which includes expected floor types and debris types), and performance/longevity (see US 20080104780 A1 (“Dayton”) Fig. 2; ¶ 0040, showing bristle tufts, wire brush tines, paddles, and flexible, rectangular tines). For example, Verhasselt contemplates using various types of agitator construction, including nap, bristles, fibers, and microfiber material (Verhasselt ¶¶ 0042, 0063-0065, “Any suitable natural and/or synthetic fibers may be used for the brushes in the assembly.”). Tran discloses that the use of tines (also called “flaps”) reduces hair wrap around the agitator and exhibits improved flexibility relative to a continuous flexible blade (Tran 5:34-6:64). Further, Collaro discloses that the “tine” configuration is “simple so as to facilitate manufacture” and is “particularly applicable to rotary brushes for use in vacuum cleaners and carpet sweepers” (Collaro 2:53-59).
Regarding claim 2, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Verhasselt further discloses wherein the first brushroll comprises an elongated agitator body to which the first set of tines is affixed, with the first set of tines extending outwardly from the elongated agitator body (Figs. 1-6, first brushroll 30 has an elongated agitator body; as modified in the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination, a first set of tines is fixed to and extends from the elongated agitator body).
Regarding claim 3, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 2 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the first set of tines extend radially from the elongated agitator body, and the first set of tines comprise a root at the elongated agitator body and a tip opposite the root, wherein the root and tip lie in a plane when not subject to external force, and wherein the tip is configured to bend out of the plane when in interference with the second set of tines (Figs. 1-8, brushroll 40 includes flat, rectangular tines 78 that extend radially from the elongated body of brushroll 40, the tines having a root (near base 72), a tip 74 opposite the root, where the root and tip are in a plane when not subjected to an external force (see Figs. 2-8), and the tip is capable of bending out of the plane when subjected to an external force (e.g., as modified in the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination, the tines of the first brushroll would interfere with the tines of the second brushroll)).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 3 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 2 as applied above.
Tran further discloses wherein the first set of tines comprise a plurality of first tines having roots at the elongated agitator body and tips opposite the roots (Figs. 1-8, brushroll 40 includes flat, rectangular tines 78 that extend radially from the elongated body of brushroll 40, the tines having a root (near base 72), a tip 74 opposite the root).
Verhasselt further discloses wherein the tips are configured to extend through the inlet as the first brushroll rotates (Fig. 2, the tips of the bristles of the first brushroll 30 extend below and through the inlet at the bottom opening of housing 60 during rotation).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 4 is the same as for claim 1. Examiner notes that the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination contemplates maintaining the same overall radial length of the brushrolls when modified to use tines instead of bristles (i.e., as modified, the tips of the tines would reach to the same radial extent as the bristles shown in Verhasselt Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 4 as applied above.
Tran further discloses wherein the plurality of first tines comprise an engagement surface that contacts a surface to be cleaned during rotation of the first brushroll (Figs. 1-8, brushroll 40 includes flat, rectangular tines 78 having a root (near base 72), a tip 74 opposite the root, and an engagement surface (one flat side) that is capable of contacting a surface to be cleaned.
Verhasselt further discloses wherein the tips are configured to extend below and through the inlet so that at least [] a portion of the engagement surface rubs across the surface to be cleaned to comb hair from the surface to be cleaned (Fig. 2, the tips of the bristles of the first brushroll 30 extend below and through the inlet at the bottom opening of housing 60 during rotation).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 5 is the same as for claim 4. As modified by the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination, the tips of the tines are capable of the recited function “wherein the tips are configured to extend below and through the inlet so that at least of a portion of the engagement surface rubs across the surface to be cleaned to comb hair from the surface to be cleaned.”
Regarding claim 6, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the first set of tines and the second set of tines comprise silicone rubber (4:21-37, the blades 70 including tines 78 can be made from silicone rubber).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 6 is the same as for claim 1, with the further design choice consideration being the material used for the tines. Examiner notes that silicone rubber appears to be the default material taught by Tran (Tran 4:21-37).
Regarding claim 7, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the first set of tines and the second set of tines comprise a plurality of tines each having a flat rectilinear body having a root, a tip opposite the root, an engagement surface configured to contact a surface to be cleaned or another tine during rotation of the first and second brushrolls, a non-engagement surface opposite the engagement surface, and lateral sides joining the engagement surface and the non-engagement surface (Figs. 1-8, brushroll 40 includes flat, rectangular tines 78 having a root (near base 72), a tip 74 opposite the root, an engagement surface (one flat side) that is capable of contacting a surface to be cleaned, a non-engagement surface (the other flat side) that is opposite the engagement surface, and lateral sides joining the engagement and non-engagement surfaces).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 7 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the first set of tines and the second set of tines comprise a plurality of tines having a tine length, a tine width, and a tine thickness, wherein the tine length is greater than the tine width and the tine thickness, and the tine width is greater than the tine thickness (Figs. 1-8; 4:60-5:18, brushroll 40 includes flat, rectangular tines 78 that have a length (radial length), width (along the brushroll axis), and thickness, where the length is greater than the width (e.g., the tine marked as reference 78 and 70 in Fig. 3), and where the width is greater than the thickness).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 8 is the same as for claim 1. Examiner notes that the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination contemplates using the same tines (e.g., multiple instances of the tine marked as reference 78 and 70 in Tran Fig. 3) for all of the tines of the first and second brushrolls. Tran teaches various tine configurations, including using tines that are all identical for the brushroll 40 (Tran 4:60-5:18). Further, the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to any particular dimensions of the tines or to the fact that the tines are all sized the same or differently (see Spec. ¶¶ 0053-0055). Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device based on a difference in dimensions because it would perform no differently than the prior art device); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 8 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the tine width is at least three times greater than the tine thickness (Figs. 1-8; 4:60-5:18, width of tines 78 may range from 5mm to 20mm, while the thickness of tines 78 may range from 0.5 to 2mm).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 9 is the same as for claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 8 as applied above. Verhasselt further discloses wherein the first brushroll comprises a first elongated agitator body and the second brushroll comprises a second elongated agitator body separated from the first elongated agitator body by a gap distance measured along a perpendicular line between the first and second axes, wherein the tine length is greater than at least one half of the gap distance (Figs. 1-6, first brushroll 30 has an elongated agitator body and second brushroll 32 has an elongated agitator body, where they are separated by a gap distance between their axes 36, 38, where the length of the bristles are greater than half of the gap distance (see Fig. 2)).
Examiner notes that the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination contemplates maintaining the same overall radial length of the brushrolls when modified to use tines instead of bristles (i.e., as modified, the tips of the tines would reach to the same radial extent as the bristles shown in Verhasselt Fig. 2, and the length of the tines would be at least as long as the bristles shown in Verhasselt Fig. 2). Further, the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to any particular dimensions of the tines relative to the gap distance (see Spec. ¶¶ 0061-0062). Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device based on a difference in dimensions because it would perform no differently than the prior art device); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 11, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the first set of tines comprises a plurality of tines arranged in multiple rows, each row extending in a generally helical formation from a first lateral end of the first brushroll to a second lateral end of the first brushroll (Figs. 1-8; 4:20-21, 5:9-11, the tines 78 are arranged in multiple rows in a helical formation as recited (see Figs. 4-8)).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 11 is the same as for claim 1. Examiner notes that Tran contemplates various tine configurations, including using rows of tines arranged helically or parallel (Tran 4:7-30). Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this helical configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement (see Spec. ¶ 0056). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the first brushroll comprises a first elongated agitator body and the second brushroll comprises a second elongated agitator body separated from the first elongated agitator body by a gap, and the second set of tines are timed to interfere with the first set of tines as the first and second set of tines move through the gap (Figs. 1-6, first brushroll 30 has an elongated agitator body and second brushroll 32 has an elongated agitator body, where they are separated by a gap, where the respective bristles of brushrolls 30, 32 are timed to interfere with each other (see Fig. 2) as the brushrolls 30, 32 counterrotate against each other (as modified in the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination, the tines of the first brushroll would interfere with the tines of the second brushroll)).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 12 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein individual tines of the first set of tines are arranged on the first brushroll to interfere with respective individual tines of the second set of tines for at least a predetermined number of degrees of rotation as the first and second brushrolls counterrotate (Figs. 1-6, the respective bristles of brushrolls 30, 32 are arranged to interfere with each other for at least a certain number of degrees of rotation (see Fig. 2) as the brushrolls 30, 32 counterrotate against each other (as modified in the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination, the tines of the first brushroll would interfere with the tines of the second brushroll)).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 13 is the same as for claim 1. Examiner notes that the limitation “at least a predetermined number of degrees of rotation” is very broad. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the “number of degrees of rotation”, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement (see Spec. ¶ 0058). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 14, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 1 as applied above. Verhasselt further discloses an attachment tube extending from the housing, the attachment tube being in fluid communication with the air path (Figs. 1-6, tube 78 extends from housing 60 (see Figs. 2, 5) and is in fluid communication with the air path via element 52).
Regarding claim 15, Verhasselt discloses a…tool for a vacuum cleaner (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0025, cleaning head 12 for vacuum cleaner 10), comprising:
a housing having a brushroll chamber and defining an air path (Figs. 1-6, housing 60 with brushroll chamber (near reference 36, 38 in Fig. 2) with a defined air path that includes passing through the bottom opening of housing 60, near reference 64, and through element 52);
an inlet into the brushroll chamber, the inlet in fluid communication with the air path (Figs. 1-6, inlet at the bottom opening of housing 60 (near references 30 and 32 in Fig. 2) is in fluid communication with the air path that includes passing near reference 64 through element 52);
an attachment tube extending from the housing, the attachment tube being in fluid communication with the air path (Figs. 1-6, tube 78 extends from housing 60 (see Figs. 2, 5) and is in fluid communication with the air path via element 52);
a first brushroll mounted in the brushroll chamber and configured to rotate about a first axis in [a] first direction (Figs. 1-6, first brushroll 30 is mounted in the brushroll chamber and rotates about axis 36 in a clockwise direction in Fig. 2);
and a second brushroll mounted in the brushroll chamber and configured to rotate about a second axis in a second direction that is counter to the first direction (Figs. 1-6, second brushroll 32 is mounted in the brushroll chamber and rotates about axis 38 in a counterclockwise direction in Fig. 2);
wherein the second set of tines [is] timed to interfere with the first set of tines as the first and second brushrolls counterrotate to pull hair into the air path above the first and second brushrolls (Figs. 1-6, the respective bristles of brushrolls 30, 32 are timed to interfere with each other (see Fig. 2) as the brushrolls 30, 32 counterrotate against each other and are capable of the recited function; Examiner does not interpret this limitation as a method step of operating the accessory tool).
Verhasselt does not explicitly disclose:
an accessory tool for a vacuum cleaner;
the first brushroll including a first set of tines,
the second brushroll including a second set of tines.
However, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious this claim.
Tran discloses:
an accessory tool for a vacuum cleaner (Figs. 1-8, accessory tool 10),
a brushroll including a set of tines (Figs. 1-8, brushroll 40 includes rectangular tines 78).
Collaro discloses a brushroll including a set of tines (Figs. 1-4, brushroll as shown has rectangular, rubber tines (at reference 11)).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 15 is the same as for claim 1, with the addition that the cleaning head of Verhasselt could be modified (e.g., made separate and smaller) into an accessory cleaning head for a vacuum cleaner, as taught by Tran. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Verhasselt contemplates modifying and using the disclosed cleaning head 12 in a variety of different types and sizes of cleaning machines (Verhasselt Figs. 7A-C; ¶ 0068, disclosing an upright cleaner, a walk-behind cleaner, a ride-on cleaner, and robotic cleaners). Further, the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to any particular cleaning head size, or the fact that it is a smaller accessory cleaning head as opposed to a main vacuum cleaning head. Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device based on a difference in dimensions because it would perform no differently than the prior art device); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 18, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 15 as applied above. Tran further discloses at least one suction-focusing notch on an underside of the housing and disposed on a lateral edge of the inlet (Figs. 1-3, 8 (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the notch on the lateral edge of the inlet is capable of the recited function (see Spec. ¶¶ 0048-0049; Figs. 3, 4A, “suction-focusing notches” 88, 90)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination with the teachings of Tran to add side notches (“suction-focusing notch”) to the housing 60. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because these notches provide an air path when the housing is against a flat surface. For example, if the inlet of the housing has no notches, when it is placed on a flat floor, the vacuum suction would cause the accessory tool to stick to the flat floor, where little to no air would enter through the inlet. The notches would prevent this undesirable condition with the added benefit of channeling air exactly as intended through the notches (when the housing is placed on a flat floor).
[AltContent: textbox (“suction-focusing notch”)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
1414
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tran Fig. 3 (annotated)
Regarding claim 19, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 15 as applied above. Tran further discloses wherein the first set of tines and the second set of tines comprise a plurality of tines each having a flat rectilinear body having a root, a tip opposite the root, an engagement surface configured to contact a surface to be cleaned or another tine during rotation of the first and second brushrolls, a non-engagement surface opposite the engagement surface, and lateral sides joining the engagement surface and the non-engagement surface (Figs. 1-8, brushroll 40 includes flat, rectangular tines 78 having a root (near base 72), a tip 74 opposite the root, an engagement surface (one flat side) that is capable of contacting a surface to be cleaned, a non-engagement surface (the other flat side) that is opposite the engagement surface, and lateral sides joining the engagement and non-engagement surfaces).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 19 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, Verhasselt discloses a vacuum cleaner (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0025, vacuum cleaner 10), comprising:
a suction source configured to generate a working airstream through a working air path (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0025, suction source 24 is capable of generating an airstream through a working air path (e.g., the air path from suction source 24 to tube 78));
a separating and collection assembly configured to separate hair and other debris from the working airstream (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0025, waste reservoir 22 is capable of the recited function);
and an accessory tool comprising:
a housing having a brushroll chamber and defining a tool air path (Figs. 1-6, housing 60 with brushroll chamber (near reference 36, 38 in Fig. 2) with a defined tool air path that includes passing through the bottom opening of housing 60, near reference 64, and through element 52);
an inlet into the brushroll chamber, the inlet in fluid communication with the tool air path (Figs. 1-6, inlet at the bottom opening of housing 60 (near references 30 and 32 in Fig. 2) is in fluid communication with the tool air path that includes passing near reference 64 and through element 52);
an attachment tube extending from the housing, the attachment tube fluidly connecting the tool air path with the working air path (Figs. 1-6, tube 78 extends from housing 60 (see Figs. 2, 5) and connects the tool air path with the working air path via element 52);
a first brushroll mounted in the brushroll chamber and configured to rotate about a first axis in [a] first direction, the first brushroll including a first set of tines (Figs. 1-6, first brushroll 30 is mounted in the brushroll chamber and rotates about axis 36 in a clockwise direction in Fig. 2);
and a second brushroll mounted in the brushroll chamber and configured to rotate about a second axis in a second direction that is counter to the first direction, the second brushroll including a second set of tines (Figs. 1-6, second brushroll 32 is mounted in the brushroll chamber and rotates about axis 38 in a counterclockwise direction in Fig. 2);
wherein the second set of tines [is] timed to interfere with the first set of tines as the first and second brushrolls counterrotate to pull hair into the air path above the first and second brushrolls (Figs. 1-6, the respective bristles of brushrolls 30, 32 are timed to interfere with each other (see Fig. 2) as the brushrolls 30, 32 counterrotate against each other and are capable of the recited function; Examiner does not interpret this limitation as a method step of operating the accessory tool).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 20 is the same as for claim 15.
Verhasselt in view of Tran, Collaro, and Bosses
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200196818 A1 (“Verhasselt”) in view of US 8533905 B1 (“Tran”), GB 642819 A (“Collaro”), and US 20060075596 A1 (“Bosses”).
Verhasselt pertains to a vacuum cleaner (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9B). Tran pertains to a vacuum cleaner (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). Collaro pertains to a rotary brush for vacuum cleaners (Figs. 1-5; 1:13-21). Bosses pertains to a carpet cleaner (Abstr.; Figs. 1-13B). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 16, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 15 as applied above.
Tran further discloses wherein the housing comprises an air turbine chamber, and [] an air turbine mounted in the air turbine chamber and configured to rotate about a turbine axis, the air turbine coupled with the first and second brushrolls to drive the rotation of the first and second brushrolls (Figs. 1-8, turbine 52 in chamber 50 is capable of rotating about axis 62 and is coupled with brushroll 40 to drive its rotation; see discussion below re “coupled with the first and second brushrolls”).
Bosses discloses a motor coupled with the first and second brushrolls to drive the rotation of the first and second brushrolls (Bosses Figs. 5, 7; ¶¶ 0043. 0052, motor 46 drives brushrolls 32, 34 in counterrotating directions via belt 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro combination with the teachings of Tran and Bosses to substitute the brushroll motors 80/82 of Verhasselt with an air turbine (and drive belt and related structure) to drive the first and second brushrolls. This is a case of simple substitution where the use of the air turbine to drive the first and second brushrolls, instead of using motors, would have been predictable as exemplified by the operation of the turbine driving the brushroll in Tran (Tran Figs. 3, 5; 3:25-4:6, 5:60-6:5). In fact, Tran discloses the use of a motor instead of an air turbine (Tran 4:1-6, “Alternatively, instead of being coupled to an impeller assembly 52 that is driven by a remote suction source, the agitator assembly 40 can be operably interconnected with a motor (not shown) provided within the nozzle body 10. The motor can be coupled with the drive belt 68 for imparting rotational movement to the agitator assembly 40.”). With respect to driving the two brushrolls 30, 32 of Verhasselt (instead of a single brushroll) using a single turbine, driving two brushrolls with a single motor is known in the art and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, this could be accomplished by using the drive belt of Tran to drive both brushrolls (Bosses Figs. 5, 7; ¶¶ 0043. 0052, motor 46 drives brushrolls 32, 34 in counterrotating directions via belt 54), or by adding another drive belt for the second brushroll to the turbine (added by Tran) or to the first brushroll (see, e.g., US 20090223008 A1 (“Kissel”) Figs. 1-6, two brushrolls 42/44 are rotated in opposite directions using two belts 66, 68; see also US 20110010887 A1 (“Oh”) Figs. 1-8; ¶¶ 0006-0010, dual brushrolls 102 are driven by air turbine 110 via a belt). Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having two brushrolls driven by a single turbine. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 17, the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro/Bosses combination makes obvious the accessory tool of claim 16 as applied above.
Tran further discloses a belt coupling the air turbine with the first brushroll, wherein the air turbine and [the] first brushroll rotate in [a] same direction (Figs. 3, 5; ¶¶ 3:25-4:6, 5:60-6:5, belt 68 coupled turbine 52 with brushroll 40 and rotate in the same direction).
Bosses further discloses a gear set coupling the first brushroll with the second brushroll, wherein the air turbine and second brushroll rotate in opposing directions (Figs. 8-9; ¶¶ 0055-0056, gears couple brushrolls 200A-E together with the air turbine 210 and can rotate in the same direction or different directions).
The obviousness combination and rationale for claim 17 pertaining to Tran is the same as for claim 16. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Verhasselt/Tran/Collaro/Bosses combination with the teachings Bosses to substitute a gear drive for the drivetrain connection between the first and second brushrolls (the proposed modification in claim 16 uses a belt). This is a case of simple substitution where the use of gears instead of a belt (or belts) to drive the second brushroll via the first brushroll is known and would have been predictable (Bosses ¶ 0055, “Any suitable drive means known in the art may be used to drive the scrub brushes 200A-200E, such as, for example, an air driven turbine 210 through a suitable gear drive train or transmission (not shown). The scrub brushes 200A-200E may all be driven in the same direction, or they may be alternately driven in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions to enhance the scrubbing action.”; see also US 20240277193 A1 (“Bloomer”) Fig. 2; ¶ 0033, disclosing a transmission driving a brushroll as a belt or gear drive). Examiner notes that coupling the second brushroll to the first brushroll via an even number of gears (e.g., two gears, each gear axially aligned and attached to each of the first and second brushrolls) would cause the second brushroll to rotate in the opposite direction from the first brushroll, thereby meeting the limitation “wherein the air turbine and second brushroll rotate in opposing directions.” Examiner also notes that even though the Figs. 8-9 embodiment of Bosses is different from the embodiment of Figs. 5, 7, the teaching of using a gear to rotate brushrolls (whether they are horizontal brushrolls or vertical brushrolls) would apply to both embodiments.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to vacuum cleaners and rotating brushes similar to Applicant’s invention, including ones that have air turbines and dual rotating brushes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: October 6, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
