DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word :though” in line 6 should be changed to “through”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation that the distal end is located “adjacent” to an opposite end of the tank is unclear because the term “adjacent” is a relative term, defined as “lying near, close or contiguous”1, which does not clearly define any relative location or distance of the distal end of the mixing tube (for instance, any portion of the claimed device may be considered to be adjacent to the lower end of the tank, being formed as a single unit, and thus being relatively near of close to the bottom of the tank)
Regarding claim 10, the limitation that the mixing tube extends in a tangential direction relative to a circumference of the tank is unclear. The term “tangent” is defined as straight line that touches a circle at a single point, but the mixing tube is shown extending downward at an angle internal to the circumference of the tank. 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 has a directional component 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. The examiner also proposed alternative language for this limitation that would more clearly define the orientation of the mixing pipe, as extending at an angle relative to the central longitudinal axis of the tank portion.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mixing tube that extends in a tangential direction relative to a circumference of the tank (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martel et al. (2013/0219652).
Regarding claim 1, Martel discloses a vacuum assembly comprising: a vacuum portion including a first vacuum source (18) having a first vacuum inlet and a first vacuum outlet; a tank portion (35); a three-way inlet valve (portion of manifold having valve head 38 therein) fluidly connected the first vacuum inlet of the first vacuum source through a first vacuum inlet line (28), wherein the three-way inlet valve fluidly connects the first vacuum inlet line to the tank portion through a first tank inlet line (26) when in a first position (as shown in Fig. 3) and the three-way inlet valve fluidly connects the first vacuum inlet line to the vacuum source with an inlet (60) from a surrounding environment when in a second position (Fig. 4); and a three-way outlet valve (portion of manifold having valve head 40 therein) fluidly connected to the first vacuum outlet of the first vacuum source with a first vacuum outlet line (30), wherein the three-way outlet valve fluidly connects the first vacuum outlet line to an outlet (32) to the surrounding environment when in a first position (Fig. 3) and the three-way outlet valve fluidly connects the first vacuum outlet line of the vacuum source with the tank portion through a first tank outlet line (also 26, which functions as the tank inlet line when the valves are in a first position of Fig. 3 and a tank outlet line in Fig. 4) when in a second position (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Martel further 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), wherein the portions of the housing between the vacuum source and the tank may be considered to define an intermediate housing, such that the inlet (60) from the surrounding environment extends through an intermediate housing of the intermediate portion and the outlet (32) to the surrounding environment extends through the intermediate housing.
Regarding claim 3, Martel further discloses that the intermediate housing of the intermediate portion defines a pressurizable chamber upstream of the inlet to the vacuum source (any portion of the manifold 24 of Martel may be considered to be a pressurizable chamber due to the connection to the suction source), and is also upstream of the first vacuum inlet to the first vacuum source.
Regarding claim 8, Martel further discloses a mixing tube (in the form of the tank outlet line 26 when in the configuration of Fig. 4) fluidly downstream of the first vacuum source when the three-way outlet valve is in the second position (Fig. 4) and the mixing tube extends into the tank portion.
Regarding claim 9, Martel further discloses that the mixing tube includes an outlet at a distal end and the distal end is considered to be located adjacent to an opposite end of the tank portion from the intermediate portion (the distal end can be considered to be adjacent to any portion of the tank, including the lower end, as being relatively near and close to the lower 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Grasmann (DE 4138223 C1) and Ohlendorf (EP 3773105).
Regarding claim 4, while Martel discloses that the manifold is positioned within a portion of the housing that also houses the vacuum portion (considered to be intermediate due to the location between the suction source and tank, as discussed supra), Martel fails to disclose that the intermediate portion is removably attached to the tank portion and the vacuum portion. Grasmann discloses a similar vacuum assembly, also having a tank (1), vacuum portion (8) and a portion having valves for controlling reverse flow to clean filters, similar to Martel, and teaches that the valve portion is provided in a removable intermediate housing (3), disclosed as a modular component, which allows the valve section to be optionally removed if desired and/or to be applied to a common/known tank and vacuum portion in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to similarly provide the manifold of Martel as a separate intermediate housing, as taught by Grasmann, to allow the valve section to be optionally removed if desired (fir instance for cleaning of the manifold and/or access to the motor for repair or replacement) and/or to be applied to a common/known tank and vacuum portion in the art (to allow use of the filter cleaning manifold with other tank type vacuum cleaners). However, Grasmann also fails to disclose how the respective housing components are connected to one another. Ohlendorf discloses another similar vacuum assembly, also having a tank (4), vacuum portion (3) and an intermediate housing portion (2), and teaches that the respective portions are provided with latches (5-8) to optionally secure the portions together, which would be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to secure the connections between parts, and prevent accidental separation if the assembly were to tip, and thus prevent spillage. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to secure the intermediate housing of Grasmann, when provided with the manifold of Martel therein as discussed supra, with similar latches to secure the connection of the intermediate housing to the tank and vacuum portion.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, providing the manifold of Martel in a modular intermediate housing, as taught by Grasmann, would enable the intermediate portion to be removably attached to the vacuum portion on a first end and the tank portion on a second end, similar to the modular component of Grasmann.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ohlendorf (EP 3773105) and Lahaye (5,970,573).
Martel fails to disclose that the tank portion is supported on wheels or includes a float switch. Ohlendorf discloses the similar vacuum cleaner, as discussed supra, 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 Martel with a similar base, having wheels thereon, to allow a user to easily move the tank. Additionally, Lahaye also discloses a vacuum assembly with a tank and vacuum portion, and teaches that the assembly further includes a float switch (52) located within the tank portion that is configured to deactivate the first vacuum source when the float switch is activated when the container is filled (Col. 4, lines 38-40), which is well known in the art to prevent damage to a suction motor that may occur if liquid reaches the motor and/or to prevent overflowing of liquid from the tank. 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 float switch to the assembly of Martel, to also prevent damage to a suction motor that may occur if liquid reaches the motor and/or to prevent overflowing of liquid from the tank. It is further understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art that the float switch disclosed by Lahaye is electronic (supported by the disclosure that it is normally closed, which allows the motor to continue to operate, whereas an electrical open condition would signal a full condition), such that it further would have been obvious for the float switch to be in electrical communication with a controller that will automatically control operations of the assembly and for the controller to be configured to deactivate the first vacuum source when the float switch is activated in response to the float switch indicating that the tank is full (even very basic electronic devices include some form of controller to perform operations in response to sensors, programs and/or manual inputs).
Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Nolte (3,343,199).
Martel further discloses a suction line (duct system connected to assembly inlet 14) fluidly connecting a debris collector (an adaptor connected to the duct system for collection of debris, which is understood to be equivalent in function and structure as the claimed debris collector) and the tank portion. However, Martel fails to disclose a drain opening and valve. Nolte discloses another similar vacuum assembly, which is capable of collecting fluids, and teaches that the system preferably includes a drain opening (144) located in an opposite end of the tank portion from the intermediate portion, and a discharge valve (146) configured to selectively drain the tank portion, which will be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to allow for easier draining of liquid than alternatives that include removing or tipping the tank, which can be very heavy when filled with liquids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar drain opening located in an opposite end of the tank portion of Martel from the intermediate portion, and a discharge valve configured to selectively drain the tank portion, as taught by Nolte, to enable relatively easy draining of any liquids collected in the tank.
Regarding claim 24, Martel discloses the suction line connector (14) at an upper end of the tank, which will be positioned at/adjacent to the opposite end of the tank from the drain opening taught by Nolte.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Martinez (2013/0009371).
Regarding claim 10, Martel fails to disclose a specific shape for the tank. However, Martinez discloses another similar vacuum assembly and teaches 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. 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 Martel in a cylindrical shape, as is well known in the art and having improved strength, wherein the mixing tube (26) extends in a direction having a “circumferential component” relative to a circumference of the tank portion (the tube 26 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 mixing tube (26) of Martel includes an outlet at a distal end.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652) in view of Martinez (2013/0009371), as applied to claims 10-11, and further in view of Conrad (10,974,258).
Regarding claim 12, Martel 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 Martel, 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).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Dever et al. (2007/0174993).
Martel fails to disclose a filter canister in the first vacuum inlet line. Dever discloses a similar vacuum assembly, also having a valve to reverse flow for cleaning the primary filter (40), and teaches that an additional filter is provide in the first vacuum inlet line (54) and first vacuum outlet lines (58), which functions to insure that no dirt and debris is drawn into the suction generator during vacuum cleaner operation (paragraph 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar filter in the vacuum inlet line of Martel, to similarly protect the motor from intaking any debris or dirt, which is well known in the art to be detrimental to most suction motors.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652) in view of Dever et al. (2007/0174993), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Winters (5,263,225).
Martel and Dever both fail to disclose a pressure relief valve. Winters discloses another similar vacuum assembly, and teaches that the tank preferably includes a pressure relief valve fluidly connecting the tank portion and the surrounding environment designed (1) to relieve excess air volume and pressure build-up in the collection tank when forced air/water separation is in effect, (2) to regulate a constant maximum air flow through the drainage system and (3) to act as a fluid drain source from the tank should the fluid level exceed capacity level, at the start of forced air/water separation (Col. 7, lines 47-54). 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 assembly of Martel with a similar pressure relief valve, as taught by Winters, to relieve excess air volume and pressure build-up, regulate a constant maximum air flow and to act as a fluid drain source from the tank should the fluid level exceed capacity level, which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to protect the vacuum source, prevent damage to the tank or other components that may occur from excess pressure and/or prevent overflowing of the tank.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (2013/0219652) in view of Martinez (2013/0009371), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Arthur et al. (10,780,541).
Martel fails to disclose what material any of the components are formed from. Arthur discloses another vacuum assembly, and teaches that components may be formed from metal or plastic, as appropriate (Col. 6, lines 42-45), wherein metal and plastic are commonly known as the two most common materials used for vacuum cleaners, valves and tubing and are readily available, relatively inexpensive and easy to manufacture. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the assembly, including the mixing tube, of Martel from similar materials such as metal and/or plastic (equivalent to rigid polymer), being well known, inexpensive and easy to manufacture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of previous claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection are made as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Ratliff (7,588,037) and Sun et al. (CN 119112038) disclose vacuum cleaners having similar structure to the applicant’s claimed invention, as well as the cited prior art.
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 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 25 June 2026
1 "Collins English Dictionary — Complete & Unabridged" 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Prosecution Insights