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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Firstly, Examiner notes that claim 23 was removed from the claim set, however no indication that it was canceled was provided, as the subject matter of claim 23 appears to have been added to claim 1, the claim will be treated as canceled.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 10 under 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 of Conrad (US 20160015229 A1) in view of FOR1 (KR 20150019294 A) and Birmingham (US 20070273845 A1).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would be motivated to combine Conrad and FOR1 as doing so would allow for the cleaner to display either information relevant to the cleaning operation to the operator or entertainment for the operator as suggested in FOR1 Para [0002]- [0007]. Further it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify in light of Birmingham to use an electronically controlled swivel as doing so would allow for the projected image to automatically be projected to a desirable location depending on the orientation of the cleaner to maintain a clean and clear image.
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 1-3, 6, 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015229 A1) in view of FOR1 (KR 20150019294 A) and Birmingham (US 20070273845 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Conrad teaches A vacuum cleaner for cleaning a surface, the vacuum cleaner comprising:
a main body (108),
a tool (132and 136) with a connector end for connection to the main body (See Figure 3) and a cleaner end (end of tool 132 at 136 in figure 3) opposite the connector end (see figure 3),
a distinct flat projection surface (Top portion of cleaner head 136), for displaying projected information thereon (Top portion 136 is capable of being projected onto), and
But does not explicitly teach, a projector for casting a projection comprising the projected information onto the projection surface.
The projector being mounted to a swivel on a top of the main body, the swivel being configured to adjust a direction of the projection based on the relative orientation of the projection surface.
However, FOR1 does teach
a projector (148’) for casting a projection comprising the projected information onto the projection surface (See Figure 4c and Para [0052] “In addition, as another example, the first display unit 147'' includes a beam projector 148' installed behind the upper surface of the cleaner body 120, as shown in FIG. 4C, and an image projected from the beam projector 148'. It may be configured to include a screen 149 installed in front of the upper surface of the cleaner body 120 opposite the beam projector 148' to form an image from the beam. At this time, the screen 149 is installed on the upper surface of the cleaner main body 120 so that it can be folded when stored and unfolded when used.”) on top of the main body (See Fig. 4c).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cleaner of Conrad to have a projector for displaying projected information as advantageously suggested by FOR1 as doing so would allow for the cleaner to display either information relevant to the cleaning operation to the operator or entertainment for the operator as suggested in FOR1 Para [0002]- [0007].
Additionally, Birmingham discloses a projector (14) being mounted to an electronically controlled swivel (See Para [0056] “A swivel assembly 30 within upper housing 26 is adapted for rotation, such as through axis 32, to impart a second degree of motion (e.g., tilt) in response to the operation of a motion control element depicted as a second actuator (A2) 34. An image projection element 36 is configured for converting received image signals to an optical output.” And Para [0012] “The term "projection system" is generally used herein to describe a combination of a projection head and a projection control module. In one embodiment, the projection head comprises a projection element for projecting an image, as well as one or more motion control elements (e.g., actuators) for changing the direction of image output from the projection element. The projection control module comprises a control processor, such as a computer, that communicates with the projection head and controls its motion to project an image, either smoothly or stepwise, onto different projection location”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the projector of Conrad as modified to be mounted on a swivel configured to electronically adjust a direction of the projection based on the relative orientation of the projection surface as doing so would allow for panning, tilting or moving the projected image to a desired location while in addition minimizing undesirable vibrations in the process of doing, while doing so electronically would allow for the control to be performed automatically without input from the user or operator.
Regarding Claim 2, Conrad as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches, Wherein the tool comprises a cleaner head provided at its cleaner end (see Figure 3 head 136).
Regarding Claim 3, Conrad as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition teaches wherein the projection surface is provided on a top surface of the cleaner head (top portion of cleaner head 136 is capable of being projected onto).
Regarding Claim 6, Conrad as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition teaches wherein the tool comprises a wand (see wand 132 in Figure 2 of Conrad).
Regarding Claim 10, Conrad as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition teaches configured for being used in a stick mode with the wand attached to the main body (See Fig. 2 of Conrad showing the cleaner in stick mode) and in a handheld mode with the wand removed from the main body (See Fig. 20 of Conrad for an example of the cleaner in handheld mode).
Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015229 A1) in view of FOR1 (KR 20150019294 A) and as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Ogawa (US 20040252283 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Conrad as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 10 but does not explicitly teach, Wherein the projector is configured for adjusting the projection in dependence of a switch between the handheld mode and the stick mode.
However, Ogawa does teach a projector adjusting to changes in the screen to be projected onto (See para [0007]- [0008] “Accordingly, it is an object of the invention to provide a projector capable of precisely measuring the tilt angle of the optical axis projected light with respect to a screen. It is another object of the invention to provide a projector capable of accurately correcting distortion of a video image using information on a measured tilt angle.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the projector of Conrad to be able to adjust its projection based on if the vacuum is in a stick mode or a handheld mode, as the transition to stick or handle held mode would require a change in angle and allowing the projector to automatically adjust to such changes automatically would be beneficial to the user, allowing for an easy transition back and forth from handheld to stick mode of cleaning, increasing the versatility of the tool.
Claim(s) 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015229 A1) in view of FOR1 (KR 20150019294 A) and as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Hooley (US 20180249875 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Conrad as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the projection surface is made of an at least partially transparent material.
However, Hooley does teach a cleaner head (12) with a partially transparent material (305A-D) onto which light is projected (See Para [0027] “FIGS. 8-10 show a display having a plurality of LEDs 300A-300D working with indicators 305A-305D formed in a panel 310 of the surface cleaning head 12. The indicators 305A-D are words (or symbols) of clear plastic formed in a black panel 315 so that when a series of LEDs 300A-300D light positioned behind the indicators 305A-305D the LEDs 300A-300D illuminate the indicators 305A-305D through the black panel 315. The black panel 315 is insert molded into the outer housing 320 of the surface cleaning head 12. Each LED or series of LEDs 300A, 30013, 300C, or 300Da re positioned in a box (e.g., box 301B shown in FIG. 11) that is sealed against the inside of the outer housing 320 around the indicator 305A, 305B, 305C, or 305D, respectively, such that light shines through the clear plastic forming the word or symbol, but the activated LEDs 300A, 300B, 300C, or 300D do not illuminate other indicators 305A, 305B, 305C, or 305D not activated. Therefore, the indicators 305A, 305B, 305C, or 305D not activated appear to be black because the view through the clear word is into a dark box.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify projection surface to be made of an at least partially transparent material to allow the light to be projected onto and through the surface, allowing an operator or user to see from both sides of the projection surface.
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015229 A1) in view of FOR1 (KR 20150019294 A) and as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Hooley (US 20180249875 A1) as modified in claim 18 and finally in view of Miichi (US 20180220112 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Conrad as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 18 but does not explicitly teach wherein the projector is configured for adjusting a background color of the projection and/or a color of the projected information in dependence of a color and//or texture of the surface.
However, Miichi does teach wherein the projector is configured for adjusting a background color of the projection and/or a color of the projected information in dependence of a color and or texture of a surface (See Para [0064] “This enables the projection of video images with improved visibility in such a manner that the color of each image is adjusted to the color of the surroundings. Note that the blocks may be weighted according to the brightness of the blocks instead of the distance from projection surface 2.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the projector of Conrad as modified to adjust its projection and colors to the background to be projected onto and ambient light of the environment as doing so would increase the visibility of the projection to the user and allow for easier use of the projector function in different cleaning environments (See Para [0010] of Miichi “The present invention was conceived to overcome the above-described problem, and has an object to provide the lighting system and program which allow the projection of video images that appear natural and have improved visibility even in bright conditions.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723