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 24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites “The vacuum cleaner according to claim 24”. Examiner finds that this is a clear typographical error as claim 24 cannot depend from itself and therefore for the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action examiner is interpreting “The vacuum cleaner according to claim 24” to be --The vacuum cleaner according to claim 1--.
Claim 26 recites “a predetermined period of time” but should read “the predetermined period of time” as a predetermined period of time was already recited in claim 25.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 25 recites “a first predetermined threshold” and “a second predetermined threshold”. Examiner finds that Applicant only has support in their disclosure for the second predetermined threshold being the same as the first predetermined threshold (i.e. Applicant only has disclosure for a single predetermined threshold), and therefore examiner will be interpreting “a second predetermined threshold” to be the same value as “a first predetermined threshold” claimed earlier in claim 25. Examiner finds that this interpretation is supported by Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 12/1/2025 where Applicant makes the same argument for claims 1 and 25 and Applicant only mentions a singular predetermined threshold. Examiner notes that if Applicant intends for the first and second predetermined thresholds to be different values from each other that this would be considered new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensing device” in claim 25, because (A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “sensing” designates a function performed by the device, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “sensing” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for sensing. Examiner is interpreting “sensing device” to be a variable resistor, a strain gauge load cell, or equivalent structure based on at least page 1 line 26 to page 2 line 3 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensing device” in claims 1, 9, 27, and 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 12, 18, 20, and 32 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.
Claims 12 and 32 recite the limitation "the user setting includes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “the user setting incudes” to be --the controller is configured to receive a user setting, wherein the user setting includes--.
Claim 18 recites “the first” and “the second part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to examiner what either of the first part or the second part are in the claims. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is bringing in portions of claim 1 which were deleted in the amendment filed 12/1/2025 into claim 18 to provide antecedent basis for “the first part” and “the second part” and to provide clarity for both claims 18 and 20. Claim 18, as examined for this office action, now reads --The vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the sensing device includes a variable resistor having first and second parts that are slideable in relation to each other in the direction against the force of a spring thereby changing the resistance of the variable resistor; wherein the spring is fitted in a space circumferentially surrounded on the exterior by the first part and circumferentially surrounded on the interior by the second part and is contained therein by means of an outer circumferential ledge at an end of the first part and a corresponding inner ledge at an end of the second part, and wherein the first part fits inside the second part and is telescopically slidable therein.--
Claim 32 recites “the predetermined threshold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this predetermined threshold the same as the first predetermined threshold or the second predetermined threshold recited in claim 25 or is it a different predetermined threshold. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “the predetermined threshold” to be --the first predetermined threshold--.
Claim 20 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 26 are simply a repeat of claim limitations found in claim 15 and therefore claim 26 fails to further limit claim 25. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 22-26, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamm et al. (WO2009103585), provided 1/30/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Hamm, in view of Murchie et al. (US9763551), hereinafter Murchie.
Regarding claim 1, Hamm discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a fan (Fig. 2 element 10, 0009 and 0028); a nozzle (Fig. 1 element 8); a tube (see annotated Fig. 1 below where the combination of the rigid tube and flexible tube corresponds to a tube); a dust separation device (Fig. 1 element 3); a motor (Fig. 2 element 8, 0009 and 0028) configured to drive the fan to generate a suction flow (Fig. 2 element 4) from the nozzle via the tube, to the dust separation device (0028); a handle (Fig. 1 element 6) configured to control movement of the nozzle on a surface to be cleaned (0022, floor surface corresponds to surface to be cleaned); a sensing device (Fig. 2 element 22, 0032) configured to measure a force along a direction between the handle and the nozzle (Fig. 2, 0032); and a controller (Fig. 2 element 24, 0032) configured to control an output of the motor in response to the measured force (0032), wherein the controller is configured to lower the motor output to a first setting if the sensed force exceeds a predetermined threshold (0033, where the power level which is “reduced significantly” corresponds to a first setting and “upper threshold value” corresponds to a predetermined threshold), and wherein the motor output is lowered during a period of time (0033, where the period of time corresponds to the time it takes for the lower threshold value to be undershot and the power is increased again).
Hamm fails to disclose the motor output is lowered to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds the predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting.
Murchie is also concerned with a vacuum cleaner and teaches the motor output is lowered to the first setting during a predetermined period of time (14:32-55, where the embodiment where the controller commands “the vacuum motor sub-system to run the vacuum motor at a reduced speed” is being used, “a predetermined period” corresponds to a predetermined period of time, and the “reduced speed” corresponds to the first setting), and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds the predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting (14:32-55, where “controller” corresponds to the controller, the motor output being zero which would occur during “a full shutdown of the machine” corresponds to a second setting which occurs if the sensed force exceeds the predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting (i.e. the motor output being zero is less than the motor output being at a reduced speed)). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Hamm discloses the invention except the controller is configured to lower the motor output to a first setting until the sensed force drops below a predetermined lower threshold instead of the controller is configured to lower the motor output to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds the predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting. Murchie shows that a controller which is configured to lower the motor output to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds the predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures allow for a clearance of a clog or blockage of suction flow). Therefore, because these two controller types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a controller which is configured to lower the motor output to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds the predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting for a controller which is configured to lower the motor output to a first setting until the sensed force drops below a predetermined lower threshold.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the controller is configured to vary the motor output as a function of a magnitude of the sensed force (Hamm, 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 9, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the handle comprises a bent portion of the tube (Hamm, see annotated Fig. 1’ below).
Hamm, as modified, fails to disclose that the sensing device is located in the bent portion of the tube. However, Hamm, as modified, does disclose that the sensing device can be located on the handle (6) or the pipe connection (7) (Hamm, 0032). Hamm, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the sensing device being located in the bent portion of the tube. Pursuant MPEP 2144.04_VI_C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the sensing device in the bent portion of the tube, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hamm as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the controller is configured to receive a user setting, wherein the user setting includes a setting of the predetermined threshold (Hamm, 0009, where the “predetermined value” of negative pressure for the first and second pressure sensors (i.e. the upper threshold value of the measured force) corresponds to a user setting of the predetermined threshold because “predetermined” means that a user predetermined the threshold values and input the threshold values into the controller as a “setting”).
Regarding claim 13, Hamm as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a housing (Hamm, Fig. 1 element 2) configured to be moveable on a floor (Hamm, see annotated Fig. 1 above where the wheels make the housing capable of moving on a floor) and containing the motor and the fan and the dust separation device (Hamm, Fig. 1), and wherein the tube comprises a flexible tube and a rigid tube extending from a first end to a second end (Hamm, see annotated Fig. 1 above), with the flexible tube connecting the housing to the first end of the rigid tube (Hamm, see annotated Fig. 1 above); the handle is provided at the first end of the rigid tube (Hamm, see annotated Fig. 1 above); and the nozzle is provided at the second end of the rigid tube (Hamm, see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust separation device is a dust bag (Hamm, 0029), a filter, a cyclone, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 22, Hamm as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the predetermined period of time is 5-15 seconds. However, pursuant MPEP 2144.05-II-A, it 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 to modify the time in which the power is reduced to be between 5-15 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e. reducing power over a predetermined period of time (Murchie, 14:32-55, where “reduced speed” corresponds to a reduced power and “a predetermined time” corresponds to a predetermined period of time)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation and indeed only specifies that this range is an example of a range (see page 4 lines 20-26 of Applicant’s specification), which indicates that the disclosed range is not critical.
Regarding claim 23, Hamm as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the first setting is at least 10 percent less than the motor output that exceeded the predetermined threshold. However, pursuant MPEP 2144.05-II-A, it 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 to modify the first setting be at least 10 percent less than the motor output that exceeded the predetermined threshold, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e. reducing motor output (Murchie, 14:32-55, where “reduced speed” corresponds to a reduced motor output)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation and indeed only specifies that this range is an example of a range (see page 4 lines 20-26 of Applicant’s specification), which indicates that the disclosed range is not critical.
Regarding claim 24, Hamm as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the first setting is at least 20 percent less than the motor output that exceeded the predetermined threshold. However, pursuant MPEP 2144.05-II-A, it 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 to modify the first setting be at least 20 percent less than the motor output that exceeded the predetermined threshold, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e. reducing motor output (Murchie, 14:32-55, where “reduced speed” corresponds to a reduced motor output)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation and indeed only specifies that this range is an example of a range (see page 4 lines 20-26 of Applicant’s specification), which indicates that the disclosed range is not critical.
Regarding claim 25, Hamm discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a fan (Fig. 2 element 10, 0009 and 0028); a nozzle (Fig. 1 element 8); a tube (see annotated Fig. 1 above where the combination of the rigid tube and flexible tube corresponds to a tube); a dust separation device (Fig. 1 element 3); a motor (Fig. 2 element 8, 0009 and 0028) configured to drive the fan to generate a suction flow (Fig. 2 element 4) from the nozzle via the tube, to the dust separation device (0028); a handle (Fig. 1 element 6) configured to control movement of the nozzle on a surface to be cleaned (0022, floor surface corresponds to surface to be cleaned); a sensing device (Fig. 2 element 22, 0032) configured to measure a force along a direction between the handle and the nozzle (Fig. 2, 0032); and a controller (Fig. 2 element 24, 0032) configured to control an output of the motor in response to the measured force (0032), wherein the controller is configured to lower the motor output if the sensed force exceeds a first predetermined threshold (0033, where “upper threshold value” corresponds to a first predetermined threshold), and wherein the motor output is lowered to a first setting during a period of time (0033, where the power level which is “reduced significantly” corresponds to a first setting and the period of time corresponds to the time it takes for the lower threshold value to be undershot and the power is increased again).
Hamm fails to disclose the motor output is lowered to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds a second predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting.
Murchie is also concerned with a vacuum cleaner and teaches the motor output is lowered to the first setting during a predetermined period of time (14:32-55, where the embodiment where the controller commands “the vacuum motor sub-system to run the vacuum motor at a reduced speed” is being used, “a predetermined period” corresponds to a predetermined period of time, and the “reduced speed” corresponds to the first setting), and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds a second predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting (14:32-55, where “controller” corresponds to the controller, the motor output being zero which would occur during “a full shutdown of the machine” corresponds to a second setting which occurs if the sensed force exceeds a second predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting (i.e. the motor output being zero is less than the motor output being at a reduced speed), where examiner notes that according to the interpretation of “a second predetermined threshold” discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, a second predetermined threshold is the same as the first predetermined threshold). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Hamm discloses the invention except the controller is configured to lower the motor output to a first setting until the sensed force drops below a predetermined lower threshold instead of the controller is configured to lower the motor output to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds a second predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting. Murchie shows that a controller which is configured to lower the motor output to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds a second predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures allow for a clearance of a clog or blockage of suction flow). Therefore, because these two controller types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a controller which is configured to lower the motor output to the first setting during a predetermined period of time, and wherein the controller is configured to further lower the motor output to a second setting if the sensed force exceeds a second predetermined threshold after the predetermined period of time, wherein the second setting is less than the first setting for a controller which is configured to lower the motor output to a first setting until the sensed force drops below a predetermined lower threshold.
Regarding claim 26, Hamm as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 25, as described above, and further discloses the motor output is lowered to the first setting during a predetermined period of time (Murchie, 14:32-55, where the embodiment where the controller commands “the vacuum motor sub-system to run the vacuum motor at a reduced speed” is being used, “a predetermined period” corresponds to a predetermined period of time, and the “reduced speed” corresponds to the first setting). Examiner notes that as described in the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection above, the limitations of claim 26 are all found within claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above).
Regarding claim 32, Hamm as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 25, as described above, and further discloses the controller is configured to receive a user setting, wherein the user setting includes a setting of the first predetermined threshold (Hamm, 0009, where the “predetermined value” of negative pressure for the first and second pressure sensors (i.e. the upper threshold value of the measured force) corresponds to a user setting of the predetermined threshold because “predetermined” means that a user predetermined the threshold values and input the threshold values into the controller as a “setting”).
Claims 14 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamm et al. (WO2009103585), provided 1/30/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Hamm, in view of Murchie et al. (US9763551), hereinafter Murchie, and in further view of Corneliss et al. (DE102004014252), provided by Applicant in IDS filed 4/9/2021 and hereinafter referred to as Corneliss.
Regarding claim 14, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the vacuum cleaner is an upright or stick-type vacuum cleaner.
Corneliss is also concerned with a vacuum cleaner and teaches a stick-type vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Hamm, as modified, discloses the invention except that the vacuum cleaner is a canister-type vacuum cleaner instead of a upright or stick-type vacuum cleaner. Corneliss shows that a stick-type vacuum cleaner is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these vacuum cleaner types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a canister-type vacuum cleaner for a stick-type vacuum cleaner.
Regarding claim 29, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 25, as described above, but fails to disclose the sensing device is a strain gauge load cell.
Corneliss is also concerned with controlling airflow in a vacuum cleaner and teaches the sensing device is a strain gauge load cell (Fig. 2 element 22, 0019). It 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 to modify the vacuum cleaner of Hamm, as modified, to make the sensing device a strain gauge load cell because strain gauges provide high accuracy and a near direct measurement of the force in real time.
Regarding claim 30, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 29, as described above, and further discloses the load cell is located in the tube (Hamm, 0032).
Regarding claim 31, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 29, as described above, and further discloses the load cell is located outside of the tube (Corneliss, Fig. 2).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamm et al. (WO2009103585), provided 1/30/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Hamm, in view of Murchie et al. (US9763551), hereinafter Murchie, in further view of Kim et al. (US20160302636), hereinafter Kim, and in further view of Hall et al. (US6695636), hereinafter Hall.
Regarding claim 18, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the sensing device includes a variable resistor having first and second parts that are slideable in relation to each other in the direction against the force of a spring thereby changing the resistance of the variable resistor; wherein the spring is fitted in a space circumferentially surrounded on the exterior by the first part and circumferentially surrounded on the interior by the second part and is contained therein by means of an outer circumferential ledge at an end of the first part and a corresponding inner ledge at an end of the second part, and wherein the first part fits inside the second part and is telescopically slidable therein.
Kim is also concerned with controlling a vacuum cleaner and teaches the sensing device includes a variable resistor (Fig. 6 element 411) having first and second parts (Fig. 6 elements 334, 337, and 411b correspond to a first part and 332, 338, 421, and 411a correspond to a second part), which are slideable in relation to each other in said direction against the force of a spring (Fig. 5 element 335) thereby changing the resistance of the variable resistor (0137 and 0161). It 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 to modify the vacuum cleaner of Hamm, as modified, to make the sensing device a variable resistor having first and second parts that are slideable in relation to each other in the direction against the force of a spring thereby changing the resistance of the variable resistor because Kim teaches that using a variable resistor can be used in conjunction with a controller to reduce a horizontal load felt by a user when operating the vacuum cleaner (0058).
Hamm, as modified, fails to disclose the spring is fitted in a space circumferentially surrounded on the exterior by the first part and circumferentially surrounded on the interior by the second part and is contained therein by means of an outer circumferential ledge at an end of the first part and a corresponding inner ledge at an end of the second part, and wherein the first part fits inside the second part and is telescopically slidable therein.
Hall is also concerned with solving the problem of allowing relative motion between elements utilizing a spring and teaches the spring (Fig. 3 element 33) is fitted in a space circumferentially surrounded on the exterior by the first part (Fig. 3 element 15) and circumferentially surrounded on the interior by the second part (Fig. 3 element 35) and is contained therein by means of an outer circumferential ledge (Fig. 4 element 115) at an end of the first part (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where first end of first part corresponds to an end of the first part) and a corresponding inner ledge (Fig. 8 element 245) at an end of the second part (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where second end of second part corresponds to an end of the second part), and wherein the first part fits inside the second part and is telescopically slidable therein (Fig. 3, 3:65-4:1). Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide criticality for this spring arrangement in the specification and that while criticality is provided in the Applicant Arguments filed 4/16/2025, this cannot be considered as it was not part of the original disclosure. Pursuant MPEP 2143_I_B, it 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 to modify the vacuum cleaner of Hamm, as modified, to have the spring fitted in a space circumferentially surrounded on the exterior by the first part and circumferentially surrounded on the interior by the second part and contained therein by means of an outer circumferential ledge at an end of the first part and a corresponding inner ledge at an end of the second part, wherein the first part fits inside the second part and is telescopically slidable therein as taught by Hall, because the substitution of one known element (e.g. a spring system connecting two parts where the spring is not circumferentially surrounded by the first and second parts taught by Hamm, as modified,) for another (e.g.a spring system connecting two parts where the spring is circumferentially surrounded by the first and second parts) yields predictable results (e.g. allowing the first and second parts to move relative to each other while still having a base position when the spring under normal tension). Examiner notes that the components of Kim which have been taught into Hamm, as modified, are not being replaced, but rather modified by the teachings of Hall of how the spring is arranged and retained in relation to the first part and second part.
Regarding claim 20, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses the first part comprises a sliding connector (Kim, Fig. 6 element 334) attached to the end of the first part (Kim, Fig. 6), wherein the second part comprises an insulated resistive layer (Kim, Fig. 6 element 411a) attached on an inside of the second part (Kim, Fig. 6), and wherein when the variable resistor is subjected to a strain, the sliding connector slides along the insulated resistive layer resulting in an increase in resistance between an end of the resistive layer and the sliding connector that is detectable by the controller (Kim, 0161 and 0024, where the control part corresponds to the controller).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamm et al. (WO2009103585), provided 1/30/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Hamm, in view of Murchie et al. (US9763551), hereinafter Murchie, and in further view of Kim et al. (US20160302636), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 27, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 25, as described above, but fails to disclose the sensing device includes a variable resistor having first and second parts that are slideable in relation to each other in the direction against the force of a spring thereby changing the resistance of the variable resistor.
Kim is also concerned with controlling a vacuum cleaner and teaches the sensing device includes a variable resistor (Fig. 6 element 411) having first and second parts (Fig. 6 elements 334, 337, and 411b correspond to a first part and 332, 338, 421, and 411a correspond to a second part) that are slideable in relation to each other in the direction against the force of a spring (Fig. 5 element 335) thereby changing the resistance of the variable resistor (0137 and 0161). It 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 to modify the vacuum cleaner of Hamm, as modified, to make the sensing device a variable resistor having first and second parts that are slideable in relation to each other in the direction against the force of a spring thereby changing the resistance of the variable resistor because Kim teaches that using a variable resistor can be used in conjunction with a controller to reduce a horizontal load felt by a user when operating the vacuum cleaner (0058).
Regarding claim 28, Hamm, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 27, as described above, and further discloses the spring is fitted in between the first and second parts (Kim, Fig. 7) and is contained therein by means of an outer circumferential ledge at an end of the first part (Kim, Fig. 7, the ledge of the first part (particularly element 334) shown facing in the right/left direction facing the spring (335) corresponds to an outer circumferential ledge at an end of the first part) and a corresponding inner ledge at an end of the second part (Kim, Fig. 7, the outer circumference of the second part (particularly element 332) which faces the spring (335) corresponds to a corresponding inner ledge at an end of the second part).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view over Hamm et al. (WO2009103585), provided 1/30/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Hamm, in view of Murchie et al. (US9763551), hereinafter Murchie. See the rejection of claims 1 and 25 above.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 on 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723