DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 October 2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not established that the examination of both invention would create a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because, the previous examiner does in fact provide reasons a-c for why there is a burden for examination. For further support, the difference between examination of method and apparatus is substantially different from one another, where mechanical apparatus claims can commonly be searched via images of the invention, with occasional text search, whereas method claims typically require substantial examination of the text of the prior art for the specific method steps claimed. Additionally, the search area for method of mixing would be completely different than the current search area covering vacuum cleaners.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation that the mixing tube extends in a direction having a circumferential component relative to a circumference of the tank is unclear. The term “circumference/circumferential” typically refers to the outer radius of a circle, but the mixing tube is not shown as extending in a curved or circumferential direction, is not on/along the circumference of the tank and it is not clearly understood what a “circumferential component” is intended to disclose. As best understood by the examiner, based on the views of the tube shown in Figs. 2A and 2B, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the tube extends in a direction that is parallel to an outer surface and/or tangential direction of circumference of the tank, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yarbrough (2012/0151710).
Yarbrough discloses a vacuum assembly comprising: a vacuum portion including a vacuum source (both vacuum motors 10 of Fig. 6 are considered to be the single vacuum source 10) having an inlet (38) and an outlet (50); a tank portion (18); a three-way valve (first of 30 in Fig. 6) fluidly connecting the inlet to the vacuum source with the tank portion when in a first position (Fig. 1) and fluidly connecting the inlet to the vacuum source with an inlet to a surrounding environment when in a second position (Fig. 2); and a second three-way valve (other valve 30 in Fig. 6) fluidly connecting the outlet of the vacuum source with an outlet to the surrounding environment when in a first position (Fig. 1) and the outlet of the vacuum source with the tank portion when in a second position (Fig. 2) for optionally reversing flow through the filter to clean the filter, such that the first and second 3-way valves, which may be considered a 3-way inlet valve and a 3-way outlet valve, respectively, both being connected to the inlet and outlet of the vacuum source, particularly when the first valve is in a first position (directing flow to the inlet) and the second valve is in the second position (directing flow from the outlet).
Regarding claim 2, Yarbrough discloses that the three-way inlet valve and the three-way outlet valve are located in an intermediate portion (understood to read on any portion between two components, in this case, the valves would be positioned between the vacuum source and the tank).
Regarding claim 3, Yarbrough further discloses that the intermediate portion defines a pressurizable chamber upstream of the inlet to the vacuum source (conduit 42 of Yarbrough may be considered to be a pressurizable chamber, and is also between the vacuum source and the tank vacuum source and the tank, to be considered as part of the intermediate portion.
Regarding claim 4, the intermediate portion (considered to be all components between the tank and the vacuum source) is attached to the tank portion on a first end (end of conduit 62) and the vacuum portion on a second end (upper ends of conduits 42 and 54).
Regarding claim 7, Yarbrough further discloses a suction line (22) fluidly connecting a debris collector (open end of the line 22 is for collecting debris; Paragraph 21, “The suction hose 22 is typically used to manually collect dust and debris”) and the tank portion.
Regarding claim 8, either of the filters (14), may be considered to read on a mixing tube (being generally tube shaped, and capable of mixing the debris collected thereon, with other air or debris within the tank when the valve is in the second position to remove debris therefrom and blow air into the tank) and are fluidly downstream of vacuum source when the three-way outlet valve is in the second position (Fig. 2) and the mixing tube extends into the tank portion.
Regarding claim 9, the filters of Yarbrough are understood to include filter media around the entire perimeter, from the top to the bottom, which will function as an outlet when the 3-way valve is in the second position, such that the filter media at the lowermost portion is considered to be an outlet at the distal end.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarbrough (2012/0151710).
Regarding claim 5, the examiner hereby takes official notice that it is very old and well known in the art of vacuum cleaners for vacuum hoses to be removably attached to respective components, to allow for removal of the hoses as needed to clear clogs, replace hoses if/when damaged and/or provide the tank, vacuum source and/or hoses with alternative connections or tools. Therefore, it further would have been obvious for the hoses to be removable from the tanka and the vacuum source, such that the intermediate portion will be removably attached to the vacuum portion on a first end and the tank portion on a second end.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarbrough (2012/0151710), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Martinez (2013/0009371).
Regarding claim 6, Yarbrough fails to disclose that the tank portion is supported on wheels. Martinez discloses another similar vacuum cleaner, also having a tank for collecting debris, and teaches that the tank is mounted on a base (60) with wheels thereon, which is well known in the art to allow the tank to be moved easily during use. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the tank of Yarbrough with a similar base, having wheels thereon, to allow a user to easily move the tank.
Regarding claim 10, Yarbrough fails to disclose a specific shape for the tank. However, Martinez also discloses that the tank is cylindrical, which is known in the art to be a very common shape, with the circular cross section providing improved strength over other shapes having planar sides. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the tank of Yarbrough in a cylindrical shape, as is well known in the art and having improved strength, wherein the mixing tube (filter 14) extends in a direction having a “circumferential component” relative to a circumference of the tank portion (the filter is also understood to be a generally cylindrical shape, such that the exterior walls will be considered to extend in a direction having a circumferential component” relative to a circumference of the tank portion, as best understood by the examiner; alternatively, the filter is three dimensional, which effectively extends in every direction, including a direction that having a “circumferential component” relative to a circumference of the tank portion).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed supra, the filters of Yarbrough are understood to include filter media around the entire perimeter, from the top to the bottom, which will function as an outlet when the 3-way valve is in the second position, such that the filter media at the lowermost portion is considered to be an outlet at the distal end.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarbrough (2012/0151710) in view of Martinez (2013/0009371), as applied to claims 10-11, and further in view of Conrad (10,974,258).
Regarding claim 12, Yarbrough and Martinez both fail to disclose a turbulence generating projection extending from an inner wall of the tank. Conrad discloses a vacuum cleaner, also having a collection tank, and teaches that the interior wall of the collection tank may include a planar element (304), configured to help to dis-entrain dirt and debris from the air flow and/or help to prevent dirt and debris being re-entrained into the air flow inside the cyclone chamber (Col. 33, lines 20-25), wherein the element will be understood to effectively change the airflow path within the lower portion of the tank, effectively generating turbulence, to enable the debris collected in the airflow to reduce speed and drop to the bottom of the tank, effective. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar planar element extending from an inner wall of the tank of Yarbrough, to similarly generate turbulence (change in airflow path), to help to dis-entrain dirt and debris from the air flow and/or help to prevent dirt and debris being re-entrained into the air flow inside the cyclone chamber, as taught by Conrad.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Conrad further discloses that the planar element (turbulence generating projection) may extend within a range of 25-75% of the height of the tank and 25% or more of the width of the chamber (Col. 33, lines 51-67), thus defining overlapping ranges, making the claimed ranges obvious over the prior art, (see MPEP 2144.05, section I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grasmann (DE 4138223 C1), Bibiano (IT UD20120044A1) and Ratliff (7,588,037) both disclose vacuum cleaners having similar structure to the applicant’s claimed invention, as well as the cited prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 23 January 2026