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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-35 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1).
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) 1-5, 7-12, 15-17, 19-20, 24-28, 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rew discloses A suction apparatus, comprising a suction head (11), a suctioned material container (12) for accommodating suctioned material, a suction blower device (13) arranged on the suction head, a channel device (20) associated with the suction blower device for conducting process air at the suction head (conducts air through elements 14-18), wherein the channel device comprises at least one first air outlet (17), and
a pipe element (switch valve 22) with an adapter device (cleaning head 5), wherein the adapter device is fluidically releasably connectable or connected to a suction port of the suction apparatus for performing a suction operation (See Para [0035] “First, in order to perform a general suction cleaning mode, as depicted in FIG. 5a, when the user holds the handle 3 (shown in FIG. 1), applies power to the main body 10 and switches the flow channel switch valve 22 to make the head unit 5 (shown in FIG. 1) connect with the filter 12 through the first flow channel 22a of the flow channel switch valve 22.” and [0036] “herein, by the suction force of the suction force generating unit 13, sucked air and impurities on the surface (to be cleaned) are sucked into the filter unit 12 by passing the head unit 5, the extended pipe 4 (shown in FIG. 1), the flexible hose 2 (shown in FIG. 1),”)
and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the channel device comprises a first channel (18) associated with the first air outlet (17)) for supplying air to the first air outlet (17) and a second channel (15) associated with the second air outlet for supplying air to the second air outlet (14).
and does not explicitly disclose second air outlet, the adapter device is fluidically releasably connectable or connected to the first air outlet for performing a blowing operation, wherein an air inlet opening of the second channel for supplying process air from the suction blower device to the second air outlet is closed by at least one wall element of the adapter device when the adapter device is properly connected to the first air outlet wherein when performing a suction operation the adapter is connected to the suction port and process air is vented both via the first air outlet and the second air outlet, and when performing the blowing operation the adapter is connected to the first air outlet and blow air is provided at the first air outlet wherein when the adapter device is connected to the first outlet, wherein when the adapter device is connected to the first outlet, the decoupling of the process air takes place exclusively via the first outlet.
Martin discloses a similar cleaner with a first air outlet (66) and a second air outlet (exhaust 17), and an adapter device, the adapter device is fluidically releasably connectable or connected to the first air outlet for performing a blowing operation (See Para [0038] “However, if desired, wet/dry vacuum assembly 1 can also be used as a blower. In order to switch vacuum assembly 1 into a blower mode, the operator may insert a blower attachment, for example a hose adaptor”), a first channel (86) and a second channel (88) wherein an air inlet opening of the second channel for supplying process air from the suction blower device to the second air outlet is closed by at least one wall element of the adapter device when the adapter device is properly connected to the first air outlet (See Para [0039] “When vacuum assembly 1 is "ON", the air pressure within exhaust air passageway 68 is increased by the exhaust forced therethrough by blower wheel 12. If closable door 100 is in a substantially open position and vacuum assembly 1 is "ON", Spring 104 exerts a closing force on closable door 100 which is less than the opening force exerted on the door by the exhaust air pressure on the circular face 112 side of the closable door. Thus, with the blower attachment inserted, the exhaust air pressure on closable door 100 causes the door to adjust to a sealed open position and seal off second air passageway 88 by meeting edge 116 of lid 8”) when performing the blowing operation, the adapter is connected to the first air outlet and blow air is provided at the first air outlet (See Para [0039] above) wherein when the adapter device is connected to the first outlet, the decoupling of the process air takes place exclusively via the first outlet (See Para [0039] above).
And suggests wherein when performing a suction operation, the adapter is connected to the suction port and process air is vented both via the first air outlet and the second air outlet (See Para [0039] “An arrow 90 in FIGS. 5 and 7 indicates the exhaust air flow direction in this position. In some embodiments, if the blower attachment (not shown) is removed while the vacuum is "ON", the closable door will remain open as the force applied to the door by spring 104 is smaller than the force created by the air pressure on the door area.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify valve system of Rew to include an exhaust door similar to that described as advantageously described by Martin such that Rew includes a second air outlet, the adapter device is fluidically releasably connectable or connected to the first air outlet for performing a blowing operation, wherein an air inlet opening of the second channel for supplying process air from the suction blower device to the second air outlet is closed by at least one wall element of the adapter device when the adapter device is properly connected to the first air outlet wherein when performing a suction operation the adapter is connected to the suction port and process air is vented both via the first air outlet and the second air outlet, and when performing the blowing operation the adapter is connected to the first air outlet and blow air is provided at the first air outlet wherein when the adapter device is connected to the first outlet, the decoupling of the process air takes place exclusively via the first outlet. as doing so would allow for a user to operate the cleaner in a blower mode easily by just inserting a blower hose into the cleaner as described in Para [0039].
Regarding Claim 2, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the air inlet opening (14) of the second channel (15) is arranged in a transition region between a connecting channel (Rew, 23a-23b) of the channel device (22) and the second channel (15), wherein process air is suppliable from the suction blower device to at least one of the first channel and the second channel by the connecting channel (See Para [0036] “Herein, by the suction force of the suction force generating unit 13, sucked air and impurities on the surface (to be cleaned) are sucked into the filter unit 12 by passing the head unit 5, the extended pipe 4 (shown in FIG. 1), the flexible hose 2 (shown in FIG. 1), the head unit connecting pipe 14, the first flow channel 22a and the main inflow pipe 15. In the filter unit 12, the impurities are separated from the air by the filter 12, the impurities are contained in a storage of the filter unit 12, however, the air is discharged to the outside of the casing 10 through the guide pipe 16 and the main discharge pipe 17.”). Regarding Claim 3, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the air inlet opening of the second channel is unblocked when the adapter device is separated from the first air outlet (See Martin Para [0039] “When vacuum assembly 1 is "ON", the air pressure within exhaust air passageway 68 is increased by the exhaust forced therethrough by blower wheel 12. If closable door 100 is in a substantially open position and vacuum assembly 1 is "ON", Spring 104 exerts a closing force on closable door 100 which is less than the opening force exerted on the door by the exhaust air pressure on the circular face 112 side of the closable door. Thus, with the blower attachment inserted, the exhaust air pressure on closable door 100 causes the door to adjust to a sealed open position and seal off second air passageway 88 by meeting edge 116 of lid 8”)).
Regarding Claim 4, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of i) the at least one wall element of the adapter device has a curved shape (66 of Martin where the wall device Is inserted is a curved shape) and ii) the at least one wall element lies in a geometrical cylinder portion (66 of Martin forms a geometrical cylinder portion).
Regarding Claim 5, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses at least one of i) a connecting device, by which the adapter device is at least one of a) releasably fixable (See Para [0035] “First, in order to perform a general suction cleaning mode, as depicted in FIG. 5a, when the user holds the handle 3 (shown in FIG. 1), applies power to the main body 10 and switches the flow channel switch valve 22 to make the head unit 5 (shown in FIG. 1) connect with the filter 12 through the first flow channel 22a of the flow channel switch valve 22.” And Para [0037] “In the meantime, in order to perform the blow cleaning mode by using the cleaner in accordance with the present invention, as depicted in FIG. 5b, the user switches the flow channel switch valve 22 switches to the blow cleaning mode in order to connect the head unit 5 with the main discharge pipe 17 through the first flow channel 22a and the sub-discharge pipe 18.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of the following applies:
- within the suction head, the second channel is in fluidic connection with a connecting channel for supplying process air from the suction blower device to at least one of the first channel and the second channel when the adapter device is separated from the first air outlet (See Figure 3 and Rew Para [0027] “A main discharge pipe 17 is connected to a side of the suction force generating unit 13 in order to discharge the air from the suction force generating unit 13 to the outside, and a sub-discharge pipe 18 is connected between the main discharge pipe 17 and the flow channel switch means 20 in order to make part of air discharged to the outside through the main discharge pipe 17 diverge from the main discharge pipe 17 and flow to the flow channel switch means 20.”);
Regarding Claim 8, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a smallest angle between a first longitudinal central axis of the first channel and a second longitudinal central axis of the second channel is at least one of i) at least 40° and ii) at most 70°.
However, Martin does suggest an angle between the first longitudinal central axis of the first channel and a second longitudinal central axis of the second channel (See Annotated Figure AA below).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure AA (Fig. 6 of Martin)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angle between the two central axes of Rew to be between 40 and 70 degrees as doing so would lower how much the valve needs to be rotated by the user to switch modes of the cleaner, providing an easier to use cleaner. Furthermore, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Rew would not operate differently if the angle between the two stated axes was limited to 40 and 70 degrees. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not assigned criticality to the described range, stating only on Page 18 of Applicants specification “The first longitudinal central axis 110 is oriented transversely to the second longitudinal central axis 112. For example, a smallest angle 114 between the first longitudinal central axis 110 and the second longitudinal central axis 112 is about 400 to 50°.”.
Regarding Claim 9, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a smallest angle between a first longitudinal central axis of the first channel and a second longitudinal central axis of the second channel is at least one of i) at least 50° and ii) at most 60°.
However, Martin does suggest an angle between the first longitudinal central axis of the first channel and a second longitudinal central axis of the second channel (See Annotated Figure AA below).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angle between the two central axes of Rew to be between 50 and 60 degrees as doing so would lower how much the valve needs to be rotated by the user to switch modes of the cleaner, providing an easier to use cleaner. Furthermore, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Rew would not operate differently if the angle between the two stated axes was limited to 40 and 70 degrees. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not assigned criticality to the described range, stating only on Page 18 of Applicants specification “The first longitudinal central axis 110 is oriented transversely to the second longitudinal central axis 112. For example, a smallest angle 114 between the first longitudinal central axis 110 and the second longitudinal central axis 112 is about 40° to 50°.”.
Regarding Claim 10, Rew discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a smallest angle between a main flow direction of process air conducted through the first channel and a main flow direction of process air conducted through the second channel is at least one of i) at least 40° and ii) at most 70° and, in particular, at least one of i) at least 50° and ii) at most 60°.
However, Rew does suggest an angle between a main flow direction of process air conducted through the first channel (in line with 18 exiting 22, see Figure 3). And a main flow direction of process air conducted through the second channel (14, see figure 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angle between the main flow directions of Rew to be between 40 and 70 degrees as doing so would lower how much the valve needs to be rotated by the user to switch modes of the cleaner, providing an easier to use cleaner. Furthermore, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Rew would not operate differently if the angle between the two stated axes was limited to 40 and 70 degrees. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not assigned criticality to the described range, stating only on Page 18 of Applicants specification “The first longitudinal central axis 110 is oriented transversely to the second longitudinal central axis 112. For example, a smallest angle 114 between the first longitudinal central axis 110 and the second longitudinal central axis 112 is about 400 to 50°.”.
Regarding Claim 11, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of the following applies:
- a main flow direction of process air conducted through the first channel (see 18 exiting 2) and a main flow direction of process air conducted through the second channel (14) are at least approximately in a common plane (See Annotated Figure A), wherein the plane is oriented transversely to at least one of a longitudinal central axis and a height direction of the suction apparatus (See Annotated Figure A; Plane of Martin is shown by Fig. 6 where the main flow directions of air into both channels are seated in the plane).
PNG
media_image2.png
569
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (Figure 3 of Rew)
Regarding Claim 12, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses
- an outer contour of the first air outlet is of at least approximately circular configuration (See inlet 17 is circular);
- a wall element of the first channel, which delimits a flow space for air of the first channel, is of cylindrical configuration at least in sections and/or in segments.
Regarding Claim 15, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the following applies:
- an outer contour of the second air outlet is of substantially rectangular configuration;
- an outer contour of the second air outlet lies in a geometrical rectangle at least in sections;
- at least three of four edge portions of the outer contour of the second air outlet lie in a geometrical rectangle;
- a fourth edge portion of the outer contour of the second air outlet comprises a first subportion and a second subportion adjoining the first subportion, wherein the second subportion is oriented transversely to the first subportion;
- at least one edge portion of the outer contour of the second air outlet is oriented transversely to a height direction of the suction apparatus;
However, Rew does teach a circular outer contour of the second air outlet (14 of Rew). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify shape of the outer contour of the second air outlet to be a substantially rectangular configuration as doing so would be a matter of design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as this merely constitutes a change in shape. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 16, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the first channel and the second channel comprise flow spaces for air that are fluidically separated or fluidically separable from one another (See Rew Para [0036] “Herein, by the suction force of the suction force generating unit 13, sucked air and impurities on the surface (to be cleaned) are sucked into the filter unit 12 by passing the head unit 5, the extended pipe 4 (shown in FIG. 1), the flexible hose 2 (shown in FIG. 1), the head unit connecting pipe 14, the first flow channel 22a and the main inflow pipe 15. In the filter unit 12, the impurities are separated from the air by the filter 12, the impurities are contained in a storage of the filter unit 12, however, the air is discharged to the outside of the casing 10 through the guide pipe 16 and the main discharge pipe 17. Herein, the sub-discharge pipe 18 diverged from the main discharge pipe 17 is closed by the flow channel switch valve 22, and accordingly air through the main discharge pipe 17 is discharged to the outside of the casing 11 of the main body 10.” Stating 18 is fluidically separable from 14 via valve 20).
Regarding Claim 17, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein a flow cross section of the first channel is at least approximately constant (See Fig. 3 of Rew showing a consistent cross-sectional area of 17 and 18).
Regarding Claim 19, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the channel device comprises a connecting channel (tube 23a and 23b in figure 4 of Rew) for producing a fluidic connection between the exit of the suction blower device and at least one of the first air outlet and the second air outlet (See air flow connection from 13, to 15 through tube 23a and 23b and towards outlet at 14 in Figure 3 of Rew), wherein air to be decoupled from the suction head by of the connecting channel is divided or divisible between at least one of the first channel and the second channel.
Regarding Claim 20, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 19 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of the following applies:
- the connecting channel is arranged in an inside space of the suction head (tube 23a to 23b of Rew is located in the head 11, see figure 3 of Rew);
Regarding Claim 24, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 23 and in addition discloses wherein at least 60% and, in particular, at least 80% of a cross-sectional area of the connecting channel (20) is on the second side (forward side of the cleaner).
Regarding Claim 25, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the second air outlet is arranged on a first side with respect to a midplane of the suction apparatus extending through at least one of a longitudinal central axis and height direction of the suction apparatus and wherein the first air outlet is arranged on a second side opposite the first side with respect to the midplane (See secondary Midplane in Annotated Figure A showing 36 and 37 on opposite sides of the midplane).
Regarding Claim 26, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein a first longitudinal central axis of the first channel is oriented at least approximately in parallel to a plane extending through a height direction of the suction apparatus (See Plane in Figure 6 of Martin and further see Annotated Figure AA above showing the first longitudinal axis sitting parallel in the plane).
Regarding Claim 27, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of i) a suction port associated with the suction blower device and
Regarding Claim 28, Rew as modified discloses all the limitation of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of i) the first air outlet
Regarding Claim 30, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of the first air outlet and the second air outlet are at least one of arranged and formed on the suction head (See Rew Figure 5b).
Regarding Claim 31, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the suctioned material container is releasably connected to the suction head.
However, Martin does teach a similar cleaner wherein a suctioned material container is releasably connected to a suction head (See Para [0025] “The attachment of motor cover 3 to lid 8 may be accomplished by a plurality of fasteners, including, but not limited to, a set of screws 10 seen in FIG. 4. Lid 8 releaseably attaches to a drum 26 by latches 23, the drum housing any fluid or debris (wet or dry) introduced into the vacuum during normal suction operations.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the suction head of Rew to be removable to easily allow access to the suctioned material container to allow a user to easily empty the container.
Regarding Claim 32, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein a suction port (16 of Rew) associated with the suction blower device (13 of Rew) is at least one of arranged and formed on the suctioned material container (12, see Fig. 3 of Rew).
Regarding Claim 33, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses comprising a suction head housing (interior of Rew 1a, See Figure 3) of the suction head on which at least one of the first air outlet and the second air outlet are at least one of arranged and formed (outlet of 14 and 17 are both formed on 11 see figure 2 of Rew).
Regarding Claim 34, Rew discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 and in addition discloses, wherein the channel device is arranged in an inside space of the suction head, wherein the inside space, in particular, is delimited by a suction head housing of the suction head (See element 20 located in the interior of 11in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 35, Rew discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the suction apparatus is set up and configured as at least one of
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Bosyj (US 5943732 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first air outlet and the second air outlet are spaced at a distance from one another in the circumferential direction of the suction head, and in particular wherein a smallest distance between the first air outlet and the second air outlet is at least one of i) at least 1 cm and ii) at most 7 cm.
However, Bosyj teaches a similar suction cleaner with a distance between a first and second air outlet in a circumferential direction of the suction head (See Fig. 2 and 2a).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angle between the air outlets of Rew as modified to be between 1 and 7 cm as doing so would lower how much the valve needs to be rotated by the user to switch modes of the cleaner, providing an easier to use cleaner. Furthermore, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Rew as modified would not operate differently if the distance between the air outlets was limited to 40 and 70 degrees. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not assigned criticality to the described range, stating only on Page 19 of Applicant’s specification that the claimed range would be is an example.
Regarding Claim 14, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the following applies:
- a first midpoint of an outer contour of the first air outlet and a second midpoint of an outer contour of the second air outlet are at least approximately at the same height with respect to a height direction of the suction apparatus;
However, Bosyj discloses a similar cleaner wherein a first midpoint of an outer contour of the first outlet and a second midpoint of an outer contour of the second outlet are at least approximately at the same height with respect to a height direction of the suction apparatus (See Bosyj figures 2 and 2a, where 37 and 36 are shown to be identical and in line with each other)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outlets of Rew as modified to have midpoints at least approximately at the same height with respect to a height direction of the cleaner, as moving the exhaust and associated exhaust filter down the airflow path such that the outlet is instead at an equal height to the first outlet would not impact the operation of the device, as the cleaner would still be able to exhaust air and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.06 VI C.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in view of Genoa (US 20130111699 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one rib element for at least one of supporting and guiding the adapter device is arranged at least one of i) on the first air outlet and ii) on the first channel.
However, Genoa teaches a similar device concerning connecting a hose and an outlet, teaching at least one rib element (28 in figure 3) is arranged at least one of the first air outlet and on the first channel (See Figure 3) for guiding and supporting the adapter (See Para [0017] “By configuring the threads 28, 32 in this manner, inadvertent or intentional removal of the vacuum hose assembly 14 and connector 18 connected thereto is avoided or prevented. This increases security of the vacuum cleaner 10 including the connector 18.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outlet or channel of Rew as modified to include ribs or an equivalent support in order to guide and secure the adapter device and provide a secure connection and preventing accidently disconnect as described by Genoa in the citation above.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Grey (US 20130291333 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a flow cross section of the second channel expands toward the second air outlet, wherein the flow cross section of the second channel at least one if i) is greatest at an end of the second air outlet that points toward the second air outlet and ii) is smallest at an end of the second channel that points away from the second air outlet.
However, Grey teaches a similar cleaner with an airflow conduit and teaches that the cross-section area of a flow duct is a result effective variable (See Para [0027] “he cross-sectional area of the air flow duct is increased by its greater width (i.e. by its greater dimension across the width of the travelling head), and the cross-sectional area is optimized to capture the momentum of the dirt and debris dislodged by the brush while maintaining a substantially linear flow of air from adjacent to the brush into the dirt-collection chamber. Also, restrictions within the duct are avoided or minimized. An advantage of optimizing the cross-sectional area of the air flow duct is that the duct is significantly less likely to become blocked by larger debris collected by the apparatus. As with all vacuum cleaners, the air flow duct is required to control the air currents within the travelling head”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the cross-sectional area of the second channel to either expand or contract such that the area is the greatest at an end of the outlet pointing towards the outlet or smallest at an end that points away from the second outlet as it would be obvious to try as doing as a matter of routine experimentation that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 21-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Curien (US 20110131756 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 19 but does not explicitly disclose comprising at least one air guiding element for distributing air to be decoupled from the suction head to the first channel and the second channel, wherein the at least one air guiding element is arranged in the connecting channel or is associated with the connecting channel.
However, Curien teaches a similar cleaner that utilizes at least one air guiding element (113) for distributing air to be decoupled from the suction head to the first channel and the second channel (See Para [0061] “In the simplest version, as visible in FIG. 1, the flow circulates, inside the bubbling tank 22, alongside the external partition 101. A baffle plate with a bend at the level of an internal partition 113 brings down the liquid phase and tends to cause it to fall into a lower peripheral area 22A of the tank 22, varying according to the inclination of the appliance, forming a liquid receptacle. The air is in turn drawn in by the aperture 119, where it arrives after having by-passed a partition 116 forming a baffle plate, after passing in a chamber 108. This simplified version does not permit to filter the dry dust in all positions in space, since the filtering liquid element must be close to an outlet 150. It is nevertheless a very inexpensive and well-suited version for a window-cleaner.”),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connecting channel to include an air guiding element as doing so would allow for guiding the air in such a way to assist in separating the entrained debris or liquid from the air, assisting the cleaner in performing its function as described above in Para [0061] of Curien.
Regarding Claim 22, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 21 but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the following applies:
- the at least one air guiding element is oriented transversely to the first channel;
- a smallest angle between a longitudinal central axis of the at least one air guiding element and a first longitudinal central axis of the first channel is at least one of i) at least 200 and ii) at most 500, and in particular at least one of i) at least 300 and ii) at most 400;
- the at least one air guiding element has a shape that is curved toward to longitudinal central axis of the suction apparatus, wherein the longitudinal central axis is oriented in the height direction of the suction apparatus;
- the at least one air guiding element is arranged in at least one of a subregion and end region of the connecting channel that points toward at least one of the first channel and second channel;
- an air guiding element and a further air guiding element spaced at a distance from the air guiding element are provided, wherein the air guiding element and the further air guiding element are oriented, in particular, at least approximately in parallel to one another.
However, Curien does disclose an air guiding element that is transverse to a first channel (see figures 1-2 of Curien showing the air guiding element (113) is transverse to the axis of the first channel (3) of Curien).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the specific location of the air guiding element in order to allow the air guide element to cause the air to change direction in such a way that it would dislodge entrained debris and increase the efficiency of the cleaner as advantageously described in Para [0061] of Curien as cited above.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Bosyj (US 5943732 A) and Baer (US 20050155177 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a midpoint and center of gravity of the suction blower device is arranged on a first side with respect to a midplane extending through at least one of a longitudinal central axis and height direction of the suction apparatus and wherein a connecting channel (20) for supplying air from the suction blower device (13) to at least one of the first air outlet (14) and the second air outlet (17) is arranged, at least in sections, on a second side opposite the first side with respect to the midplane (forward side of the cleaner, see Annotated Figure C).
However, Bosyj does disclose wherein at least one of a midpoint and center of gravity of the suction blower device is arranged on a first side with respect to a midplane extending through at least one of a longitudinal central axis and height direction of the suction apparatus and wherein a connecting channel for supplying air from the suction blower device to at least one of the first air outlet and the second air outlet is arranged, at least in sections, on a second side opposite the first side with respect to the midplane (See Annotated Figure B).
And Baer teaches a cleaner similar to Bosyj and additionally teaches regarding managing the center of gravity of components of the cleaner in order to maintain stability of the cleaner (See Para [0048] “In this example, a majority of, and in fact the entirety of, the chamber 140 and battery pack 34 are shown to be disposed underneath both the bottom inner surface 50 and the bottom wall 38 of the tank 26. The low placement of the battery pack 34, in combination with its relatively thin but wide design, helps to maintain a low center of gravity for the vacuum 10, thus making the vacuum 10 more stable. The battery pack 34 could also be releasably located on the sidewall 42 of the tank 26. In this manner, the battery pack 34 would be more easily accessible for recharging and removal, but it would create a larger footprint for the vacuum 10. This construction would further raise the center of gravity and also pull the center of gravity away from the center of the tank 26. Thus, the vacuum 10 would be less stable as it is moved.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the cleaner of Rew as modified to in according with the teachings of Bosyj to the locations of a center of gravity of different components in the cleaner in order to produce a stable cleaner that does not risk overturning during use.
PNG
media_image3.png
702
1469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B (Figures 1, 2a, 2b and 4)
PNG
media_image4.png
590
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C (Figure 3 of Rew)
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rew (US 20040250373 A1) in view of Martin (US 20020088103 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Berfield (US 6112366 A).
Regarding Claim 29, Rew as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein at least one of i) the channel device and ii) the first air outlet and iii) the second air outlet are at least one of i) arranged below a receiving region of the suction apparatus for accommodating a cable and ii) below a holding device of the suction apparatus for a cable with respect to a height direction of the suction apparatus.
However, Berfield discloses a similar cleaner wherein at least one
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to include a receiving region for a cord in order to be able to sufficiently power the cleaner in order to perform the operation, and it would be further obvious to place the receiving region above the first or second air outlet so the cord will be out of the way during the operation of the cleaner and it has been held that shifting the position of a part is an obvious matter of design choice that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art such a shift would not change the operation of the device. See MPEP2144.04. In this case, the specific location of the cord would not impact the operation of the cleaner.
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723