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 .
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.
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 1-2, 4, 7, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmann et al. (DE 102012100046, "Asmann") in view of Miller (US 5938818) and Machida (JP 2011010887).
1. Asmann teaches a vacuum cleaning device (10) comprising:
a housing having a dirty air inlet and a clean air outlet and an airflow path between the dirty air inlet and the clean air outlet (vacuum cleaner includes an unlabeled housing and airflow path 22 that passes from inlet 24, through the device, and out an unlabeled outlet, see Asmann fig. 1);
a dust container mounted to the housing wherein the airflow path goes through the dust container (22 passes through dust container 26, see Asmann fig. 1);
a motor fan assembly mounted in the housing configured to create an air flow along the airflow path in a blow mode and a suction mode (blower 12 and impeller 18 can switch between a suction mode and blowing mode, see Asmann translation [0020] and Asmann fig. 1); and
a controller configured to control the motor fan assembly in the blow mode and the suction mode (control electronics 36, see Asmann fig. 1 and Asmann Translation [0021]);
a filter assembly (28) mounted to the housing in the airflow path between the dust container and the motor fan assembly, the filter assembly comprising a coarse filter element and a fine filter element (Asmann depicts filter 28 as including a coarse filter represented by a dashed line and a fine filter represented by a solid line, Asmann fig. 1;although the description does not explicitly recite the elements, different sizes of dust are depicted on each filter layer, which one of ordinary skill would understand to teach the presence of fine and coarse filter elements.); and wherein the controller is configured to control the motor fan assembly when in the blow mode (controller sets fan speed in blow mode, see Asmann Translation [0025]).
Asmann does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to pulse the motor fan assembly in the blow mode to alternatingly increase the motor fan assembly to a first fan speed during multiple first time periods and decrease the motor fan assembly to a second fan speed during multiple second time periods, wherein the multiple second time periods are respectively longer than the multiple first time periods, wherein the first fan speed and second fan speed are non-zero.
However, Miller teaches a method directed to the problem of cleaning dust from a filter by pulsing air in a reverse direction (Miller Abstract), wherein the cleaning comprises at least two pulses: a first pulse at a high pressure for a short duration and a second pulse at a low pressure for a longer duration (Miller 6:23-34). Miller further teaches that the cleaning may involve more than two pulses (Miller 6:23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Miller regarding the repeated pulsing of air two-tiered cleaning pulse into the device of Asmann such that the controller is configured to control the motor fan assembly to pulse the motor fan assembly in the blow mode and configured to pulse the motor fan assembly to alternatingly increase the motor fan assembly to a first fan speed during multiple first time periods and decrease the motor fan assembly to a second fan speed during multiple second time periods, wherein the multiple second time periods are respectively longer than the multiple first time periods, wherein the first fan speed and second fan speed are non-zero, as doing so would improve the results of filter cleaning using a blow mode (Miller 6:23-34).
Asmann as modified does not teach the presence of an airflow bypass door to allow airflow to bypass the coarse filter element when the motor fan assembly is in the blow mode and to block airflow through the airflow bypass door when the motor fan assembly is in the suction mode.
However, Machida teaches a filter assembly for a cleaning system including a coarse filter element (mesh filter 13), a fine filter element (pleated filter 14), and a plurality of airflow bypass doors (doors 26 on openings 23, see Machida figs. 2 and 4-5) configured to block airflow through the airflow bypass door when the motor fan assembly is in the suction mode (Machida Translation [0032) and to allow airflow to bypass the coarse filter element during a filter cleaning operation (dust is cleared from filter 14 by vibrations and sent to dust collection chamber 15, bypassing the coarse filter, see Machida figs 2, 4, and 5 and Machida Translation [0029] and [0036]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Machida regarding a door for removing dust cleaned from a fine filter element into the device of Asmann such that it included an airflow bypass door to allow airflow to bypass the coarse filter element when the motor fan assembly is in the blow mode and to block airflow through the airflow bypass door when the motor fan assembly is in the suction mode, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
2. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the first fan speed is a maximum fan speed (Asmann teaches that a fan speed lower than the maximum is usually sufficient for cleaning, see Asmann translation [0010]).
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device of Asmann as modified such that the first fan speed was a maximum fan speed, as doing so would account for situations where a weaker stream of blown air is insufficient to clean the filter (in teaching that a weaker stream of air from a lower suction fan speed is "usually" sufficient to clean a filter, Asmann implicitly teaches that it may not always be sufficient and a stronger stream of air is needed).
4. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein each of the multiple first time periods is respectively between 600ms - 1000ms (Asmann teaches a first pulse period of approximately one second, or 1000ms allowing for a margin of error, see Asmann Translation [0025]).
7. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the second fan speed is 20% of the first fan speed. (Miller teaches that the second pulses should be at a lower pressure than the first pulses, see Miller 6:23-34; one of ordinary skill would understand from a basic application of compressible fluid dynamics as applied to turbomachinery that operating the fan at first and second fan speeds would produce the different pressures, such that the second fan speed to produce the second pulse at a lower pressure would be lower than the first fan speed, but would not immediately know that the recited pressure ratios would lead to a speed ratio of 20%).
However, as noted in the MPEP, “[W]here 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). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Relative fan speed during a filter-cleaning process is known in the art as a result effective variable (Asmann teaches adjusting fan speed to strike a balance between energy efficiency and generating sufficient air pressure to clean the filter, see Asmann [0010]; additionally, the relationship between fan speed and static pressure is sufficiently well known in the art that one of ordinary skill would understand the teachings from Miller of pressure ratio being a result effective variable to be an implicit teaching that fan speed ratio would be result effective). Further, Applicant has not indicated that the claimed second fan speed is critical to the invention. It would therefore have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined device such that the second fan speed was 20% of the first fan speed, as doing so would be a matter of routine experimentation based on optimizing the balance between energy used in the filter cleaning process, and providing the proper pressure ratios to adequately clean the filter.
10. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein each of the multiple second time periods is between 750ms to 2000ms (Miller teaches a second time period in the range of 0.5 to 10 seconds, Miller 6:23-34). Although the claimed ranges lie inside the disclosed range, it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I), citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant has not indicated that the claimed range is critical.
12. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to actuate an indicator during the blow mode (Asmann teaches that the controller activates the motor during blow mode, see Asmann [0025]. The sound of the motor activating during blow mode after the device is switched off provides an indication to a user that the device is in blow mode).
13. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein the motor fan assembly is configured to generate an airflow from the dust container to the dirty air inlet in the blow mode (arrow indicating airflow 22 is in suction mode and travels from inlet 24 to dust container, see Asmann fig. 1, blow mode reverses the direction, see Asmann Translation [0020]).
14. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein the motor fan assembly is configured to generate an airflow from the dirty air inlet to the dust container in the suction mode (arrow indicating airflow 22 is in suction mode and travels from inlet 24 to dust container, see Asmann fig. 1).
Claims 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmann in view of Miller and Gogel et al. (US 7752708, "Gogel").
16. Asmann teaches a vacuum cleaning device comprising:
a housing having a dirty air inlet, a clean air outlet, and an airflow path between the dirty air inlet and the clean air outlet (vacuum cleaner includes an unlabeled housing and airflow path 22 that passes from inlet 24, through the device, and out an unlabeled outlet, see Asmann fig. 1);
a dust container mounted to the housing, wherein the airflow path goes through the dust container (22 passes through dust container 26, see Asmann fig. 1);
a motor fan assembly mounted in the housing and configured to create an air flow along the airflow path in a blow mode and a suction mode (motor 12 rotates impeller 18 in one direction to generate an airflow for a suction process and an opposite direction to generate an airflow for a filter cleaning process, see Asmann Translation [0020]-[0021]); and
a controller configured to control the motor fan assembly in the blow mode and the suction mode (control electronics 36, see Asmann fig. 1 and Asmann Translation [0021]);
Asmann does not explicitly teach the presence of a user actuated interface, wherein a first user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to turn the vacuum cleaning device on or off and a second user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to operate the motor fan assembly in the blow mode.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Although Asmann does not specifically recite a user actuated interface, it does teach that a user switches the vacuum cleaner on to activates the suction process, and that when the user turns the device off, it activates the blow mode (Asmann Translation [0025]). Additionally, Asmann shows a cleaner having what one of ordinary skill would understand to be at least one button, switch, or trigger around the handle area (Asmann fig. 1). Consequently, one of ordinary skill would understand Asmann to implicitly teach the presence of a user actuated interface (one of the control elements shown in Asmann fig. 1), wherein a first user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to turn the vacuum cleaning device on or off (the first actuation turns the device on) and a second user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to operate the motor fan assembly in the blow mode (in response to the device being turned off).
Asmann teaches that the controller controls the motor fan assembly, but does not teach the presence of a dirt container sensor to determine detect whether the dirt container is full, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a signal from the dirt container sensor that the dirt container is full; and based on the received signal from the dirt container sensor that the dirt container is full, issue a control signal to the motor fan assembly to control the motor fan assembly to operate in the blow mode.
However, Gogel teaches a floor cleaning apparatus (10, Gogel fig. 1), including a fill level sensor (Gogel 7:6-13) and means to clean a filter by blowing air through it in a direction reverse to normal flow (Gogel 5:54-6:53), wherein activation of the cleaning is triggered as a result of a signal from the fill level sensor that a predetermined level of dirt has been reached (Gogel 7:6-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Gogel regarding the triggering of a cleaning cycle into the device of Asmann such that it included a dirt container sensor to determine detect whether the dirt container is full, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a signal from the dirt container sensor that the dirt container is full; and based on the received signal from the dirt container sensor that the dirt container is full, issue a control signal to the motor fan assembly to control the motor fan assembly to operate in the blow mode, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of art-recognized activation system for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Asmann as modified teaches that the controller controls the motor fan assembly, but does not specifically teach that it is configured to alternatingly increase the motor fan assembly to a first fan speed during multiple first time periods and decrease the motor fan assembly to a second fan speed during multiple second time periods, wherein each of the multiple second time periods is respectively longer than each of the multiple first time periods; and wherein the first fan speed and second fan speed are non-zero.
However, Miller teaches a method directed to the problem of cleaning dust from a filter by pulsing air in a reverse direction (Miller Abstract), wherein the cleaning comprises at least two pulses: a first pulse at a high pressure for a short duration and a second pulse at a low pressure for a longer duration (Miller 6:23-34). Miller further teaches that the cleaning may involve more than two pulses (Miller 6:23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Miller regarding the repeated pulsing of air two-tiered cleaning pulse into the device of Asmann such that the controller is pulse the motor fan assembly solely in the blow mode and configured to pulse the motor fan assembly to alternatingly increase the motor fan assembly to a first fan speed during multiple first time periods and decrease the motor fan assembly to a second fan speed during multiple second time periods, wherein each of the multiple second time periods is respectively longer than each of the multiple first time periods; and wherein the first fan speed and second fan speed are non-zero, as doing so would improve the results of filter cleaning using a blow mode (Miller 6:23-34).
17. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 16, but does not explicitly teach that it further comprises a user actuated interface, wherein a first user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to turn the vacuum cleaning device on or off and a second user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to operate the motor fan assembly in the blow mode.
However, Gogel further teaches that the cleaning cycle may be actuated by means of a power switch or by means of a manual override switch (Gogel 6:54-7:24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the additional teachings from Gogel regarding the triggering of a cleaning cycle into the device of Asmann such that it included a user actuated interface, wherein a first user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to turn the vacuum cleaning device on or off and a second user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to operate the motor fan assembly in the blow mode, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
19. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according claim 16, but does not explicitly teach that the first fan speed is a maximum fan speed (Asmann teaches that a fan speed lower than the maximum is usually sufficient for cleaning, see Asmann translation [0010]).
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device of Asmann as modified such that the first fan speed was a maximum fan speed, as doing so would account for situations where a weaker stream of blown air is insufficient to clean the filter (in teaching that a weaker stream of air from a lower suction fan speed is "usually" sufficient to clean a filter, Asmann implicitly teaches that it may not always be sufficient and a stronger stream of air is needed).
20. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 16, wherein each of the multiple first time periods is respectively between 600ms - 1000ms (Asmann teaches a first pulse period of approximately one second, or 1000ms allowing for a margin of error, see Asmann Translation [0025]; combining this with Miller's teaching of using more than two pulses would result in multiple first time periods within the claimed range).
21. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 16, but does not explicitly teach that the second fan speed is 20% of the first fan speed. (Miller teaches that the second pulses should be at a lower pressure than the first pulses, see Miller 6:23-34; one of ordinary skill would understand from a basic application of compressible fluid dynamics as applied to turbomachinery that operating the fan at first and second fan speeds would produce the different pressures, such that the second fan speed to produce the second pulse at a lower pressure would be lower than the first fan speed, but would not immediately know that the recited pressure ratios would lead to a speed ratio of 20%).
However, as noted in the MPEP, “[W]here 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). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Relative fan speed during a filter-cleaning process is known in the art as a result effective variable (Asmann teaches adjusting fan speed to strike a balance between energy efficiency and generating sufficient air pressure to clean the filter, see Asmann [0010]; additionally, the relationship between fan speed and static pressure is sufficiently well known in the art that one of ordinary skill would understand the teachings from Miller of pressure ratio being a result effective variable to be an implicit teaching that fan speed ratio would be result effective). Further, Applicant has not indicated that the claimed second fan speed is critical to the invention. It would therefore have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined device such that the second fan speed was 20% of the first fan speed, as doing so would be a matter of routine experimentation based on optimizing the balance between energy used in the filter cleaning process, and providing the proper pressure ratios to adequately clean the filter.
22. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 16 wherein each of the multiple second time periods is between 750ms to 2000ms (Miller teaches a second time period in the range of 0.5 to 10 seconds, Miller 6:23-34). Although the claimed ranges lie inside the disclosed range, it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I), citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant has not indicated that the claimed range is critical.
18. Asmann teaches a vacuum cleaning device comprising:
a housing having a dirty air inlet and a clean air outlet and an airflow path between the dirty air inlet and the clean air outlet (vacuum cleaner includes an unlabeled housing and airflow path 22 that passes from inlet 24, through the device, and out an unlabeled outlet, see Asmann fig. 1);
a dirt container mounted to the housing wherein the airflow path goes through the dirt container (22 passes through dust container 26, see Asmann fig. 1);
a motor fan assembly mounted in the housing, wherein the motor fan assembly rotates in a first direction to create an airflow along the airflow path in a blow mode and the motor fan assembly rotates in a second direction, opposite to the first direction, to create an airflow along the airflow path in a suction mode (motor 12 rotates impeller 18 in one direction to generate an airflow for a suction process and an opposite direction to generate an airflow for a filter cleaning process, see Asmann Translation [0020]-[0021]);
a filter assembly (28) mounted to the housing in the airflow path between the dirt container and the motor fan assembly (filter 28 is between dirt container 26 and motor/fan assembly 12/18, see Asmann fig. 1);
a controller configured to control the motor fan assembly in the blow mode and the suction mode (control electronics 36, see Asmann fig. 1 and Asmann Translation [0021]).
Asmann does not teach the presence of a filter sensor to determine whether the filter assembly is blocked, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a signal from the filter sensor that the filter assembly is blocked and based on the received signal from the filter sensor that the filter assembly is blocked, issue a control signal to the motor fan assembly to control the motor fan assembly to operate in the blow mode.
However, Gogel teaches a floor cleaning apparatus (10, Gogel fig. 1), including a filter sensor (because a clogged filter will reduce air flow and increase a pressure differential, an air pressure sensor that detects an air pressure between dirt collection vessel 30 and suction generator 32 serves as a filter sensor, see Gogel 7:6-13) and means to clean a filter by blowing air through it in a direction reverse to normal flow (Gogel 5:54-6:53), wherein activation of the cleaning is triggered as a result of a signal from the filter sensor that a predetermined pressure has been reached (activating a cleaning cycle upon detecting a predetermined pressure, Gogel 7:6-13; one of ordinary skill would understand such a pressure increase to correspond to a certain level of filter clogging or blockage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Gogel regarding the triggering of a cleaning cycle into the device of Asmann such that it included a filter sensor to determine whether the filter assembly is blocked, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a signal from the filter sensor that the filter assembly is blocked and based on the received signal from the filter sensor that the filter assembly is blocked, issue a control signal to the motor fan assembly to control the motor fan assembly to operate in the blow mode, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of art-recognized activation system for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Asmann as modified teaches that the controller controls the motor fan assembly, but does not specifically teach that it is configured to pulse the motor fan assembly solely in the blow mode, or that the controller is configured to alternatingly increase the motor fan assembly to a first fan speed during multiple first time periods and decrease the motor fan assembly to a second fan speed during multiple second time periods, wherein each of the multiple second time periods is respectively longer than each of the multiple first time periods; and wherein the first fan speed and second fan speed are non-zero.
However, Miller teaches a method directed to the problem of cleaning dust from a filter by pulsing air in a reverse direction (Miller Abstract), wherein the cleaning comprises at least two pulses: a first pulse at a high pressure for a short duration and a second pulse at a low pressure for a longer duration (Miller 6:23-34). Miller further teaches that the cleaning may involve more than two pulses (Miller 6:23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Miller regarding the repeated pulsing of air two-tiered cleaning pulse into the device of Asmann such that the controller is pulse the motor fan assembly solely in the blow mode and configured to pulse the motor fan assembly to alternatingly increase the motor fan assembly to a first fan speed during multiple first time periods and decrease the motor fan assembly to a second fan speed during multiple second time periods, wherein each of the multiple second time periods is respectively longer than each of the multiple first time periods; and wherein the first fan speed and second fan speed are non-zero, as doing so would improve the results of filter cleaning using a blow mode (Miller 6:23-34).
23. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 18, but does not explicitly teach the presence of a user actuated interface, wherein a first user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to turn the vacuum cleaning device on or off and a second user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to operate the motor fan assembly in the blow mode.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Although Asmann does not specifically recite a user actuated interface, it does teach that a user switches the vacuum cleaner on to activates the suction process, and that when the user turns the device off, it activates the blow mode (Asmann Translation [0025]). Additionally, Asmann shows a cleaner having what one of ordinary skill would understand to be at least one button, switch, or trigger around the handle area (Asmann fig. 1). Consequently, one of ordinary skill would understand Asmann to implicitly teach the presence of a user actuated interface (one of the control elements shown in Asmann fig. 1), wherein a first user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to turn the vacuum cleaning device on or off (the first actuation turns the device on) and a second user actuation on the user actuated interface signals the controller to operate the motor fan assembly in the blow mode (in response to the device being turned off).
24. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according claim 18, but does not explicitly teach that the first fan speed is a maximum fan speed (Asmann teaches that a fan speed lower than the maximum is usually sufficient for cleaning, see Asmann translation [0010]).
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device of Asmann as modified such that the first fan speed was a maximum fan speed, as doing so would account for situations where a weaker stream of blown air is insufficient to clean the filter (in teaching that a weaker stream of air from a lower suction fan speed is "usually" sufficient to clean a filter, Asmann implicitly teaches that it may not always be sufficient and a stronger stream of air is needed).
25. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 18, wherein each of the multiple first time periods is respectively between 600ms - 1000ms (Asmann teaches a first pulse period of approximately one second, or 1000ms allowing for a margin of error, see Asmann Translation [0025]; combining this with Miller's teaching of using more than two pulses would result in multiple first time periods within the claimed range).
26. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 18, but does not explicitly teach that the second fan speed is 20% of the first fan speed. (Miller teaches that the second pulses should be at a lower pressure than the first pulses, see Miller 6:23-34; one of ordinary skill would understand from a basic application of compressible fluid dynamics as applied to turbomachinery that operating the fan at first and second fan speeds would produce the different pressures, such that the second fan speed to produce the second pulse at a lower pressure would be lower than the first fan speed, but would not immediately know that the recited pressure ratios would lead to a speed ratio of 20%).
However, as noted in the MPEP, “[W]here 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). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Relative fan speed during a filter-cleaning process is known in the art as a result effective variable (Asmann teaches adjusting fan speed to strike a balance between energy efficiency and generating sufficient air pressure to clean the filter, see Asmann [0010]; additionally, the relationship between fan speed and static pressure is sufficiently well known in the art that one of ordinary skill would understand the teachings from Miller of pressure ratio being a result effective variable to be an implicit teaching that fan speed ratio would be result effective). Further, Applicant has not indicated that the claimed second fan speed is critical to the invention. It would therefore have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined device such that the second fan speed was 20% of the first fan speed, as doing so would be a matter of routine experimentation based on optimizing the balance between energy used in the filter cleaning process, and providing the proper pressure ratios to adequately clean the filter.
27. Asmann as modified teaches the vacuum cleaning device according to claim 18 wherein each of the multiple second time periods is between 750ms to 2000ms (Miller teaches a second time period in the range of 0.5 to 10 seconds, Miller 6:23-34). Although the claimed ranges lie inside the disclosed range, it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I), citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant has not indicated that the claimed range is critical.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 12-14, and 16-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723