DETAILED ACTION
FILTER UNIT FOR THE INTAKE CONNECTOR IN THE DIRTY-WATER TANK OF A FLOOR-CLEANING MACHINE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10-27-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed 04-24-2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-27-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach "sleeve
shaped filter element, which is arranged around the main body in such a way that, between the main body and the filter element, there is formed an annular space in which the float body is arranged so as to be displaceable between the closed position and the open position”, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Prior art Cipolla teaches a cleaning apparatus that has an annular space formed by a main body (158, figure 7) and a sleeve shaped filter element (114, figures 7-8) that is housed within element 112, and arranged around main body (158, figure 7). The sleeve-shaped filter element within element 112 create an annular space in which the float body (170) is displaceable between a closed and open position. (para 0052 describes that the float engages and disengages relative to the 112 as the liquid level changes and open and closes the openings 146).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: latching element in claims 5-6,17-18.
Examiner is interpreting the latching element as a latching hook as disclosed in applicant specification (see claim 9 and 21) or equivalent structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,11-14,23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Cipolla (US20060000051A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cipolla teaches
a substantially sleeve-shaped main body (158, figure 8), which extends between a first face end (top end of 158, figure 8) and a second face end (bottom end of 158, figure 8) and has an inlet opening (see arrows B; para 0049-0050, figure 7) at the first face end (top end of 158, figure 8), a substantially annular float body (170, figure 8), which is arranged around the main body (158, figure 8) and is displaceable along the main body (para 0052-0053) between a closed position and an open position, a cover (112, figure 8), which is arranged on the first face end of the main body, wherein the cover (112, figure 8) has at least one entry opening (146, figure 8) which is configured to be closed off by the float body (170, figure 8) when the latter is in the closed position and which is open when the float body (170, figure 8) is at a distance from the closed position, and
wherein provision is made in the cover (112, figure 8) of a fluid channel (122, figure 7), which is configured to allow a fluid to flow from the entry opening (146, figure 8) into the inlet opening (para 0049, figure 7), and
a sleeve-shaped filter element (114, figure 7-8), which is arranged around the main body (158, figure 8) in such a way that, between the main body (158, figure 7) and the filter element (114, figure 7-8), there is formed an annular space (figure 7-8; para 0049-0053 discloses the float body moves in space between the main body and filter that allows annular shaped float body to be displaced ) in which the float body (170, figure 7-8) is arranged so as to be displaceable between the closed position and the open position, wherein the filter element (114, figure 7-8) is formed at least partially from a filter material (116, para 0047).
Regarding claim 2, Cipolla teaches the filter element (114, figure 7-8) is held in a detachable manner (see 134; para 0047) on the cover (112, figure 8).
Regarding claim 11, Cipolla teaches the filter element (114, figure 8) has a sieve-like circumferential surface (para 0047).
Regarding claim 12, Cipolla teaches wherein the main body (158, figure 8) has a tubular portion (para 0050-0051) around which the float body (170, figure 7-8; para 0052-0053) is arranged, wherein the tubular portion (para 0050-0051) is adapted to be fitted over a suction connector (100, figure 7) of a floor-cleaning machine (10, figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Cipolla teaches a floor-cleaning machine (10, figure 1) having a dirty-water tank (43,para 0038), a suction connector (100, figure 4, 7-8; para 0046-0043), which extends into the dirty-water tank (43, para 0038), a suction turbine (52, para 56; figure 4), which is fluidically connected to an end of the suction connector (figure 4, 7para 0040-0041,0065) that is remote from the dirty-water tank (43, para 0038) and which serves for generating negative pressure (52, para 0040-0041,0056,0065; figure 4) in the dirty-water tank (43,para 0038), a suction line (20, figure 4), which ends in the dirty-water tank (43, para 0038), and which is connected to a device (18, para 0036) for receiving liquid, by way of negative pressure, from a floor surface (0036,0041) to be cleaned, wherein provision is made of a filter unit (110, para 0047) which is mechanically connected to a free end (para 0047) of the suction connector (100, figure 4, 7-8,10), which free end is arranged in the dirty-water tank (43, para 0038), the filter unit (110, para 0047) comprising:
a substantially sleeve-shaped main body (158, figure 8), which extends between a first face end (top end of 158, figure 8) and a second face end (bottom end of 158, figure 8) and has an inlet opening (see arrows B; para 0049-0050, figure 7) at the first face end (top end of 158, figure 8), a substantially annular float body (170, figure 8), which is arranged around the main body (158, figure 8) and is displaceable along the main body (158, figure 8) between a closed position and an open position (para 0052-0053), a cover (112,figure 8), which is arranged on the first face end of the main body, wherein the cover (112,figure 8) has at least one entry opening (146, figure 7-8) which is configured to be closed off(para 0052) by the float body (170, figure 7-8) when the latter is in the closed position and which is open when the float body (170, figure 7-8) is at a distance from the closed position, and
wherein provision is made in the cover (112, figures 7-8) of a fluid channel 122, figure 7), which is configured to allow a fluid to flow from the entry opening (146, para 0054) into the inlet opening (para 0049, figure 7), and
a sleeve-shaped filter element (114, figure 7-8), which is arranged around the main body (158, figure 8) in such a way that, between the main body (158, figure 8) and the filter element (69), there is formed an annular space (figures 7-8; para 0049-0053; discloses the float body moves in space between the main body and filter that allows annular shaped float body to be displaced ) in which the float body (170, figure 7-8) in which the float body (170, figure 7-8) is arranged so as to be displaceable between the closed position and the open position (para 0052), wherein the filter element (114, figures 4,7-8) is formed at least partially from a filter material (116, para 0047).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the filter element (114, figure 7-8) is held in a detachable manner (see 134; para 0047) on the cover (112, figure 8).
Regarding claim 23, Cipolla teaches the filter element (114, figure 8) has a sieve-like circumferential surface (para 0047).
Regarding claim 24, Cipolla teaches wherein the main body (158, figure 8) has a tubular portion (para 0050-0051) around which the float body (170, figure 7-8; para 0052-0053) is arranged, wherein the tubular portion (para 0050-0051) is adapted to be fitted over a suction connector (100, figure 7) of a floor-cleaning machine (10, figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla (US20060000051A1) in view Berfield (FR2547388A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Cipolla teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach the main body has an encircling flange which extends away in an outward direction and against which the float body bears when the float body is in the open position, and wherein the filter element extends as far as the flange.
Berfield teaches a float shutter for electric vacuum tank outlet (abstract) that includes a main body (62-68, figures 1-2) has an encircling flange (68, figure 1-2) which extends away in an outward direction and against which the float body (80, figure 1-2) bears when the float body is in the open position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cipolla so that main body has encircling flange based on teachings of Berfield. This modification would help reduce risks damaging of motor (see Berfield pages 2-3)
Cipolla as modified in claim 3 teaches the filter element extends as far as the flange.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, modified Cipolla teaches the flange (see Berfield 68, figure 1-2) has at least one flange opening (see Berfield discloses “An annular filter 70, of the drum or cartridge type, is slid over the filter cage It is internally supported by the outer faces of the fins 64, it is tightly connected with the collar 62, at the top, and rests on the periphery 69 30 of the floor 68, at the bottom, so that it closes the open areas of the filter cage and provides filtration between the interior of the tank and the outlet opening 50 through the cover Although the filter 70 can retain particulate matter, it cannot prevent the passage of liquid through it, so that when the level of the liquid in the tank 12 rises above the floor 68 of the filter cage, the level of the liquid in the filter cage also rises, which raises the float 80”.) which is closed off by the float body (see Berfield 80, figures 1-2 and see Cipolla 170, figures 7-8) when the float body (see Berfield 80, figures 1-2 and see Cipolla 170, figures 7-8) is in the open position and which is opened up when the float body (see Berfield 80, figures 1-2 and see Cipolla 170, figures 7-8) has been displaced from the open position toward the closed position.
Claim(s) 5-6,8-9 and 17-18,20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla (US20060000051A1) in view Christensen (US5377383A).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Cipolla teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach a region of the inlet opening the main body has at least one latching element, wherein the at least one latching element is configured to engage with at least one engagement element at the suction connector, and wherein the main body and the cover are configured in such a way that, when the at least one latching element is in engagement with the engagement element a fluid connection between the entry opening and the suction connector is provided.
Christensen teaches a separation chamber for a vacuum cleaner that vacuums up fluids, where the separation chamber (abstract) includes float element (20, figure 1), a region of a inlet opening (see arrows within 3, figure 3a and 4), a main body (19, figure 3a) that has at least one latching element (top end of 19, figure 3a), wherein the at least one latching element (top end of 19, figure 3a) is configured to engage with at least one engagement element (figure 3a) at the suction connector (abstract, vacuum within 3), and wherein the main body (19, figure 3a) and cover (“the upper part of the container)are configured in such a way that, when the at least one latching element (top end of 19, figure 3a) is in engagement with the engagement element (figure 3a), a fluid connection between the entry opening (16, figure 3a) and the suction connector (abstract, vacuum within 3) is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cipolla based on the teachings of Christensen to include a main body that has a latching element This modification would help to insure that the suction through the attachment is cut off in the event that the liquid in the container reaches the vicinity of the suction channel (see Christensen’s abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Cipolla teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach a locking body which has a cylindrical portion wherein the cylindrical portion is inserted into the inlet opening and is configured to counteract action of bringing the at least one latching element out of engagement with respect to the suction connector.
Christensen teaches a separation chamber for a vacuum cleaner that vacuums up fluids, where the separation chamber (abstract) includes float element (20, figure 1), teach a locking body (11, figure 3a) which has a cylindrical portion (15, figure 3a) wherein the cylindrical portion is inserted into the inlet opening (Dislcoses “ figure 4 At the same time, the finger-operated valve is opened by sliding back the button 25, as shown in FIG. 4 Access for the air from outside through the openings 26 is thereby cut off, and a suction of the liquid can commence when the vacuum cleanest or the suction is activated”) and is configured to counteract action of bringing the at least one latching element out of engagement with respect to the suction connector (abstract, vacuum within 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cipolla based on the teachings of Christensen to include a locking body. This modification would help to insure that the suction through the attachment is cut off in the event that the liquid in the container reaches the vicinity of the suction channel (see Christensen’s abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, modified Cipolla teaches the cover (see cipolla 112, figure 8 )and the main body (see Cipolla 158, figure 8) are components which are separate from one another, and
wherein the locking body (see Christensen 11, figure 3a) is arranged between the cover (see Cipolla 112, figure 8 and see Christensen “the upper part of the container) and the main body (see Cipolla 112, figure 8 and see Christensen 19, figures 2- 3a).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, modified Cipolla teaches wherein the at least one latching element include a latching hook (see Christensen top end of 19, figure 3a-4, interpreting latching hook as a catch that catches the locking body that fixes main body in place).
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla (US20060000051A1) in view Christensen (US5377383A) as applied to claim 6 and 18 further in view of Wanschure (DE2314791A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Cipolla as modified in claim 6 teaches all limitaitons stated above ,but fails to teach the locking body has a collar which extends beyond the main body into the annular space wherein the float body bears against the collar if the float body is in the closed position.
Wanschure teaches shut-off valve of a vacuum cleaning machine that includes locking body has a collar which extends beyond the main body into the annular space wherein the float body bears against the collar if the float body is in the closed position (see Wanschuere disclsoes “the float 22 rests against the perforated disc 21 and thereby closes its holes 23. Due to the higher negative pressure created in the chamber 15, the perforated disc 21 is sucked upwards together with the axle 18 and the float 22. The valve body 19 then rests against the air passage opening 24 of the blower 6, thereby interrupting the air flow and preventing liquids or foam from entering the blower”).
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla (US20060000051A1) in view Holsten (US 20150223658 A1).
Regarding claim 10 and 22, Cipolla teaches all limiations stated above ,but fails to an elastic ring element which bears against a surface of the main body facing away from the cover and which is provided to bear against the suction connector
However, Cipolla does disclose including an elastic ring element (see 138; para 0048 and 0066) for creating seals between filter housing and inner section of the container (see para 0048).
Holsten teaches a surface cleaning apparatus that has a float assembly (para 0071, 0080, 0082-0083) and ensuring there are seals between components to components are properly sealed (see para 0077)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cipolla so there is an elastic ring element which bears against a surface of the main body facing away from the cover based on teachings of Holsten. This modification would ensure components are properly sealed within the surface cleaning apparatus. (see Cipolla para 0077)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723