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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 11/10/2025 have been entered, wherein claims 1 and 5-17 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1 and 5-17 have been examined herein. The previous 35 USC 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, “filter mechanism” should read “filter [[mechanism]] attachment” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 6, “filter mechanism” should read “filter [[mechanism]] attachment” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 9, last line, “filter mechanism” should read “filter [[mechanism]] attachment” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 10, “vacuum source” should read “vacuum [[source]]” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 11, “vacuum source” should read “vacuum [[source]]” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 13, fifth line from bottom, “filter mechanism” should read “filter [[mechanism]] attachment” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 13, fourth line from bottom, “vacuum source” should read “vacuum [[source]]” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 13, last line, “vacuum source” should read “vacuum [[source]]” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 13, “filter mechanism” should read “filter [[mechanism]] attachment” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 14, “filter mechanism” should read “filter [[mechanism]] attachment” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Claim 17, “vacuum source” should read “vacuum [[source]]” to provide increased clarity and remain consistent in terminology
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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, 5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207).
Regarding claim 1, Heintz teaches a clay court drying apparatus (fig. 1-3, the apparatus is capable of drying a clay court), comprising:
a vacuum attachment (fig. 1, top plate 14, wherein barbed fitting 34 and suction line 36 are configured to connect to a conventional vacuum source (col. 3, lines 22-31)), comprising:
a vacuum head (fig. 1, wherein at least structure 14 is interpreted as the vacuum head);
an intake portion (see annotated fig. 1 below, the vacuum head has an intake portion formed in a first region of the vacuum head) formed in a first region of the vacuum head (see annotated fig. 1 below), the intake portion comprising an opening defined by an outer periphery of the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2, the structure 14 forms an opening defined by an outer periphery of the structure of 14); and
PNG
media_image1.png
472
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an outlet portion (fig. 3, outlet of barbed fitting 34 which is connected to a conventional vacuum source, col. 3, lines 22-31) formed in a second region of the vacuum head (see annotated fig. 1 above) opposite that of the intake portion (see annotated fig. 1 above, wherein the annotated second region is opposite to the intake portion), wherein the outlet portion is directly connected to the intake portion via a conduit (barbed fitting 34 is a conduit that directly connects the outlet portion to the intake portion); and
a filter attachment (fig. 1, disk 38 of fabric and bottom plate 16 are interpreted as the filter attachment, wherein Heintz teaches the bottom plate 16 can be snapped together with the top plate 14, col. 3, lines 1-3) disposed at the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2, the term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the filter mechanism is disposed “at” an exterior surface of the intake portion of the vacuum head), comprising:
a filter frame (bottom plate 16 is interpreted as the filter frame);
a filter (fabric disk 38 is interpreted as the filter, wherein the fabric disk is capable of preventing large particles from being suctioned), wherein the filter is framed by the filter frame (fig. 1-2, the fabric disk 38 is framed by the plate 16) and when attached (fig. 1-2) is disposed between the filter frame and the opening (fig. 2; when attached, part of the fabric disk 38 is disposed between the opening and the outer radial portion of the filter frame (portion indicated by element 42 in fig. 2); which is similar to the configuration of instant fig. 2b) and spans the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2).
Heintz does not explicitly teach the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable, and
fasteners arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame, wherein the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head to allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head.
However, Oh teaches a dust collection apparatus for cyclone type vacuum cleaner, wherein a filter member 131 (fig. 3) is within a filter frame 133. Additionally the filter frame has screw holes 133c to attach the filter frame to the rest of the unit (fig. 3 and 4). Overall, Oh teaches the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable (The filter attachment (fig. 3) is readily attachable and detachable via screws in screw holes 133c, fig. 3-4), and
fasteners (screws of fig. 4) arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame (fig. 3-4, the screws are generally arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame), wherein the fasteners allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed (fig. 3-4, the screws of fig. 4 allow for the filter mechanism to be readily attached to and removed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heintz to incorporate the teachings of Oh to provide fasteners as the mounting means. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute fasteners and receiving holes (as taught by Oh) for the “snapped together” mounting means of Heintz, wherein the fasteners and receiving holes are arranged about the perimeter of the filter frame (plate 16 of Heintz) and the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head (of Heintz). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known mounting means for another known mounting means in order to obtain the predictable results of mounting the bottom plate 16 to the top plate 14 of Heintz. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to be selectively separated for cleaning, which promotes correct operations and longevity.
In summary, Heintz, as modified, teaches the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable (via the incorporated fasteners and receiving holes of Oh), and
fasteners (as incorporated from Oh) arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame (the incorporated fasteners are arranged about the perimeter of the bottom plate 16 of Heintz), wherein the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head to allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (The incorporated fasteners (of Oh) are engaged with the intake portion of the vacuum head of Heintz to allow for the filter attachment (of Heintz) to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (of Heintz)).
Regarding claim 5, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Heintz, as modified, teaches wherein the filter mechanism is configured to allow a passage of liquid therethrough (col. 3, lines 22-31 of Heintz, the filter mechanism allows a passage of liquid therethrough) while substantially blocking a passage of solid particulates (The filter mechanism of Heintz, as modified, (including fabric disk 38) substantially blocks a passage of solid particulates).
Regarding claim 9, Heintz teaches a clay court drying system (fig. 1-3, the system is capable of drying a clay court), comprising:
a vacuum attachment (fig. 1, top plate 14, wherein barbed fitting 34 and suction line 36 are configured to connect to a conventional vacuum source (col. 3, lines 22-31)), comprising:
a vacuum head (fig. 1, wherein at least structure 14 is interpreted as the vacuum head);
an intake portion (see annotated fig. 1 below, the vacuum head has an intake portion formed in a first region of the vacuum head) formed in a first region of the vacuum head (see annotated fig. 1 below), the intake portion comprising an opening defined by an outer periphery of the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2, the structure 14 forms an opening defined by an outer periphery of the structure of 14); and
PNG
media_image1.png
472
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an outlet portion (fig. 3, outlet of barbed fitting 34 which is connected to a conventional vacuum source, col. 3, lines 22-31) formed in a second region of the vacuum head (see annotated fig. 1 above) opposite that of the intake portion (see annotated fig. 1 above, wherein the annotated second region is opposite to the intake portion), wherein the outlet portion is directly connected to the intake portion via a conduit (barbed fitting 34 is a conduit that directly connects the outlet portion to the intake portion); and
a filter attachment (fig. 1, disk 38 of fabric and bottom plate 16 are interpreted as the filter attachment, wherein Heintz teaches the bottom plate 16 can be snapped together with the top plate 14, col. 3, lines 1-3) disposed at the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2, the term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the filter mechanism is disposed “at” an exterior surface of the intake portion of the vacuum head), comprising:
a filter frame (bottom plate 16 is interpreted as the filter frame);
a filter (fabric disk 38 is interpreted as the filter, wherein the fabric disk is capable of preventing large particles from being suctioned), wherein the filter is framed by the filter frame (fig. 1-2, the fabric disk 38 is framed by the plate 16) and when attached (fig. 1-2) is disposed between the filter frame and the opening (fig. 2; when attached, part of the fabric disk 38 is disposed between the opening and the outer radial portion of the filter frame (portion indicated by element 42 in fig. 2); which is similar to the configuration of instant fig. 2b) and spans the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2); and
a vacuum (Heintz teaches a conventional vacuum source; col. 3, lines 22-31) coupled to the vacuum attachment (via the suction line 36) and configured to provide a vacuum force through the filter mechanism (col. 3, lines 22-31).
Heintz does not explicitly teach the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable, and
fasteners arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame, wherein the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head to allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head.
However, Oh teaches a dust collection apparatus for cyclone type vacuum cleaner, wherein a filter member 131 (fig. 3) is within a filter frame 133. Additionally the filter frame has screw holes 133c to attach the filter frame to the rest of the unit (fig. 3 and 4). Overall, Oh teaches the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable (The filter mechanism (fig. 3) is readily attachable and detachable via screws in screw holes 133c, fig. 3-4), and
fasteners (screws of fig. 4) arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame (fig. 3-4, the screws are generally arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame), wherein the fasteners allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed (fig. 3-4, the screws of fig. 4 allow for the filter mechanism to be readily attached to and removed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heintz to incorporate the teachings of Oh to provide fasteners as the mounting means. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute fasteners and receiving holes (as taught by Oh) for the “snapped together” mounting means of Heintz, wherein the fasteners and receiving holes are arranged about the perimeter of the filter frame (plate 16 of Heintz) and the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head (of Heintz). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known mounting means for another known mounting means in order to obtain the predictable results of mounting the bottom plate 16 to the top plate 14 of Heintz. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to be selectively separated for cleaning, which promotes correct operations and longevity.
In summary, Heintz, as modified, teaches the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable (via the incorporated fasteners and receiving holes of Oh), and
fasteners (as incorporated from Oh) arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame (the incorporated fasteners are arranged about the perimeter of the bottom plate 16 of Heintz), wherein the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head to allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (The incorporated fasteners (of Oh) are engaged with the intake portion of the vacuum head of Heintz to allow for the filter attachment (of Heintz) to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (of Heintz)).
Regarding claim 10, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Heintz, as modified, teaches wherein the vacuum source is operatively coupled to the vacuum attachment by at least one of a vacuum wand (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “at least one”) and a vacuum hose (fig. 1, suction line 36, col. 3, lines 22-31).
Regarding claim 11, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Heintz, as modified, teaches wherein the vacuum source is operatively coupled to the outlet portion of the vacuum head of the vacuum attachment by the at least one of the vacuum wand and the vacuum hose (fig. 1, suction line 36, col. 3, lines 22-31).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milligan et al. (US PGPUB 20050081321), hereinafter Milligan.
Regarding claim 6, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Heintz, as modified, teaches wherein the filter mechanism comprises a fabric (disk 38 of non-woven fabric of Heintz).
Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the filter mechanism comprises a mesh fabric.
However, Milligan teaches a hand-held vacuum cleaner which includes a filter 280, wherein the filter is a non-woven mesh fabric so as to be washable should it become undesirably dirty or clogged [0075].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heintz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Milligan to provide wherein the filter mechanism comprises a mesh fabric. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the fabric of the disk 38 of Heintz is a mesh fabric. Doing so would allow the fabric to be washable should it become undesirably dirty or clogged [0075 of Milligan].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207), and further in view of Milligan et al. (US PGPUB 20050081321), hereinafter Milligan, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rader et al. (DE 4322222), hereinafter Rader.
Regarding claim 7, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the mesh fabric comprises a multi- layer mesh fabric.
However, Rader teaches a filter for vacuum cleaners, wherein the filter can be designed as a multi-layer filter, the layers of mesh being put together (last paragraph on page 1 of the previously attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heintz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Rader to provide wherein the mesh fabric comprises a multi-layer mesh fabric. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the mesh fabric of Heintz, as modified, is a multi-layer mesh fabric. Doing so would make the filter more durable by providing more layers to the filter, which promotes longevity of the filter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207), and further in view of Milligan et al. (US PGPUB 20050081321), hereinafter Milligan, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 20170296006), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the mesh fabric comprises a mesh size in a range of about 1-mm to about 2-mm.
However, Wang teaches a vacuum cleaner including a filter, wherein meshes of filter net or the filter holes may be distributed in a form of multiple layers of circular rings. In addition, sizes of the meshes of the filter net or the filtering holes are not limited. A relatively small size results in the great filtering effect, and a relatively large size causes high air exhaust efficiency and a low energy loss of the electric motor. In actual applications, an appropriate size may be selected according to a requirement for performance of a product [0232]. Overall Wang teaches the mesh size is a result effective variable in that changing the mesh size adjusts the filtering effect, air exhaust efficiency and energy loss of the electric motor.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Heintz, as modified, to have a mesh size in a range of about 1-mm to about 2-mm, as it involves adjusting the dimension of a component taught to be variable (by Wang) in order to affect the filtering effect, air exhaust efficiency and energy loss of the motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Heintz, as modified, by making the mesh size in a range of about 1-mm to about 2-mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207) and further in view of Paulo (BR 102015010506) and further in view of Wellens (US PGPUB 20190328190).
Regarding claim 12, Heintz teaches a method of using a clay court drying system (fig. 1-3, the system is capable of drying a clay court), the method comprising:
providing the clay court drying system, comprising:
a vacuum attachment (fig. 1, top plate 14, wherein barbed fitting 34 and suction line 36 are configured to connect to a conventional vacuum source (col. 3, lines 22-31)), comprising:
a vacuum head (fig. 1, wherein at least structure 14 is interpreted as the vacuum head);
an intake portion (see annotated fig. 1 below, the vacuum head has an intake portion formed in a first region of the vacuum head) formed in a first region of the vacuum head (see annotated fig. 1 below), the intake portion comprising an opening defined by an outer periphery of the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2, the structure 14 forms an opening defined by an outer periphery of the structure of 14); and
PNG
media_image1.png
472
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an outlet portion (fig. 3, outlet of barbed fitting 34 which is connected to a conventional vacuum source, col. 3, lines 22-31) formed in a second region of the vacuum head (see annotated fig. 1 above) opposite that of the intake portion (see annotated fig. 1 above, wherein the annotated second region is opposite to the intake portion), wherein the outlet portion is directly connected to the intake portion via a conduit (barbed fitting 34 is a conduit that directly connects the outlet portion to the intake portion);
a filter attachment (fig. 1, disk 38 of fabric and bottom plate 16 are interpreted as the filter attachment, wherein Heintz teaches the bottom plate 16 can be snapped together with the top plate 14, col. 3, lines 1-3) disposed at the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2, the term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the filter mechanism is disposed “at” an exterior surface of the intake portion of the vacuum head); comprising:
a filter frame (bottom plate 16 is interpreted as the filter frame);
a filter (fabric disk 38 is interpreted as the filter, wherein the fabric disk is capable of preventing large particles from being suctioned), wherein the filter is framed by the filter frame (fig. 1-2, the fabric disk 38 is framed by the plate 16) and when attached (fig. 1-2) is disposed between the filter frame and the opening (fig. 2; when attached, part of the fabric disk 38 is disposed between the opening and the outer radial portion of the filter frame (portion indicated by element 42 in fig. 2); which is similar to the configuration of instant fig. 2b) and spans the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (fig. 1-2); and
a vacuum (Heintz teaches a conventional vacuum source; col. 3, lines 22-31) coupled to the vacuum attachment (via the suction line 36) and configured to provide a vacuum force through the filter mechanism (col. 3, lines 22-31).
Heintz does not explicitly teach the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable, and
fasteners arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame, wherein the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head to allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed from the opening the intake portion of the vacuum head; and
activating the vacuum source;
running the vacuum attachment over a playing surface of a clay court to be dried; and
deactivating the vacuum source.
However, Oh teaches a dust collection apparatus for cyclone type vacuum cleaner, wherein a filter member 131 (fig. 3) is within a filter frame 133. Additionally the filter frame has screw holes 133c to attach the filter frame to the rest of the unit (fig. 3 and 4). Overall, Oh teaches the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable (The filter mechanism (fig. 3) is readily attachable and detachable via screws in screw holes 133c, fig. 3-4), and
fasteners (screws of fig. 4) arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame (fig. 3-4, the screws are generally arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame), wherein the fasteners allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed (fig. 3-4, the screws of fig. 4 allow for the filter mechanism to be readily attached to and removed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heintz to incorporate the teachings of Oh to provide fasteners as the mounting means. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute fasteners and receiving holes (as taught by Oh) for the “snapped together” mounting means of Heintz, wherein the fasteners and receiving holes are arranged about the perimeter of the filter frame (plate 16 of Heintz) and the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head (of Heintz). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known mounting means for another known mounting means in order to obtain the predictable results of mounting the bottom plate 16 to the top plate 14 of Heintz. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to be selectively separated for cleaning, which promotes correct operations and longevity.
In summary, Heintz, as modified, teaches the filter attachment is readily attachable and detachable (via the incorporated fasteners and receiving holes of Oh), and
fasteners (as incorporated from Oh) arranged about a perimeter of the filter frame (the incorporated fasteners are arranged about the perimeter of the bottom plate 16 of Heintz), wherein the fasteners are engageable with the intake portion of the vacuum head to allow for the filter attachment to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (The incorporated fasteners (of Oh) are engaged with the intake portion of the vacuum head of Heintz to allow for the filter attachment (of Heintz) to be readily attached to and removed from the opening of the intake portion of the vacuum head (of Heintz)).
Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach
activating the vacuum source;
running the vacuum attachment over a playing surface of a clay court to be dried; and
deactivating the vacuum source.
However, Paulo teaches a method of using a clay court (page 1 of the previously attached translation, paragraph 001) drying system (fig. 7), the method comprising:
running the vacuum attachment over a playing surface of a clay court to be dried (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heintz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Paulo to provide running the vacuum attachment over a playing surface of a clay court to be dried. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Paulo’s teachings (of running a suction machine over a clay court to be dried) into the system of Heintz, as modified. Doing so would increase the utility of the device of Heintz by allowing the device of Heintz to pickup liquid from a clay court. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device of Heintz, as modified, to pickup liquid from a surface as intended by Heintz.
Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach
activating the vacuum source;
deactivating the vacuum source.
However, Wellens teaches a high performance handheld liquid suction device wherein in use, the operator can grasp the handle member to position the suction nozzle against a floor surface to be cleaned. The operator can then activate a power switch causing the vacuum source in the handle member to generate a vacuum that draws through the elongated tubular chamber [0021]. Wellens also teaches the operator can turn off the power to the vacuum source [0022]. Overall, Wellens teaches
activating the vacuum source [0021];
deactivating the vacuum source [0022].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heintz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Wellens to provide the steps of activating the vacuum source and deactivating the vacuum source. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Heintz, as modified, to activate the vacuum source before operation and deactivate the vacuum source after operation. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to suction water as intended. Deactivating the vacuum source would prevent the device from operating when not intended.
Regarding claim 13, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Heintz, as modified, teaches wherein the filter mechanism is configured to allow a passage of liquid therethrough (col. 3, lines 22-31 of Heintz, the filter mechanism allows a passage of liquid therethrough) while substantially blocking a passage of solid particulates (The filter mechanism of Heintz, as modified, (including fabric disk 38) substantially blocks a passage of solid particulates).
Regarding claim 17, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Heintz, as modified, teaches wherein the vacuum source is operatively coupled to the vacuum attachment by at least one of a vacuum wand (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “at least one”) and a vacuum hose (fig. 1, suction line 36, col. 3, lines 22-31).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207) and further in view of Paulo (BR 102015010506) and further in view of Wellens (US PGPUB 20190328190), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Milligan et al. (US PGPUB 20050081321), hereinafter Milligan.
Regarding claim 14, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Heintz, as modified, teaches wherein the filter mechanism comprises a fabric (disk 38 of non-woven fabric of Heintz).
Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the filter mechanism comprises a mesh fabric.
However, Milligan teaches a hand-held vacuum cleaner which includes a filter 280, wherein the filter is a non-woven mesh fabric so as to be washable should it become undesirably dirty or clogged [0075].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heintz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Milligan to provide wherein the filter mechanism comprises a mesh fabric. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the fabric of the disk 38 of Heintz is a mesh fabric. Doing so would allow the fabric to be washable should it become undesirably dirty or clogged [0075 of Milligan].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207) and further in view of Paulo (BR 102015010506) and further in view of Wellens (US PGPUB 20190328190), and further in view of Milligan et al. (US PGPUB 20050081321), hereinafter Milligan, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Rader et al. (DE 4322222), hereinafter Rader.
Regarding claim 15, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the mesh fabric comprises a multi- layer mesh fabric.
However, Rader teaches a filter for vacuum cleaners, wherein the filter can be designed as a multi-layer filter, the layers of mesh being put together (last paragraph on page 1 of the previously attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heintz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Rader to provide wherein the mesh fabric comprises a multi-layer mesh fabric. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the mesh fabric of Heintz, as modified, is a multi-layer mesh fabric. Doing so would make the filter more durable by providing more layers to the filter, which promotes longevity of the filter.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heintz (US Patent 5655258) in view of Oh (US PGPUB 20040163207) and further in view of Paulo (BR 102015010506) and further in view of Wellens (US PGPUB 20190328190), and further in view of Milligan et al. (US PGPUB 20050081321), hereinafter Milligan, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 20170296006), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Heintz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Heintz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the mesh fabric comprises a mesh size in a range of about 1-mm to about 2-mm.
However, Wang teaches a vacuum cleaner including a filter, wherein meshes of filter net or the filter holes may be distributed in a form of multiple layers of circular rings. In addition, sizes of the meshes of the filter net or the filtering holes are not limited. A relatively small size results in the great filtering effect, and a relatively large size causes high air exhaust efficiency and a low energy loss of the electric motor. In actual applications, an appropriate size may be selected according to a requirement for performance of a product [0232]. Overall Wang teaches the mesh size is a result effective variable in that changing the mesh size adjusts the filtering effect, air exhaust efficiency and energy loss of the electric motor.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Heintz, as modified, to have a mesh size in a range of about 1-mm to about 2-mm, as it involves adjusting the dimension of a component taught to be variable (by Wang) in order to affect the filtering effect, air exhaust efficiency and energy loss of the motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Heintz, as modified, by making the mesh size in a range of about 1-mm to about 2-mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the amended language. Specifically, Applicant argues Heintz in view of Oh fails to teach the amended language of claims 1 and 9 (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Heintz was relied upon to teach the further limitations of the intake portion, the outlet portion and the filter. Oh in combination with Heintz was relied upon to teach the additional limitations of the fasteners. Accordingly, Heintz in view of Oh teaches the amended limitations of claims 1 and 9. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues claims depending from claims 1 or 9 are allowable by virtue of dependency and for including additional features (page 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 9 have been rejected over Heintz in view of Oh. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues claim 12 is allowable for the same reasons as presented with respect to claims 1 and 9 (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 9 were rejected above in view of Heintz in view of Oh. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues claims depending from claim 12 are allowable by virtue of dependency and for including additional features (pages 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 12 has been rejected above over Heintz in view of Oh. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723