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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 14, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US5205014) in view of Loveless et al. (US5954863), hereinafter Loveless.
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses A wet/dry surface cleaning apparatus comprising:
(a) an air flow path (the air flow path shown in Fig. 3) from a dirty air inlet (Fig. 3 the left side opening of element 16) to a clean air outlet (Fig. 3 element 15) with a motor and fan assembly (Fig. 3 elements 116 and 117) positioned in the air flow path (Fig. 3);
(b) a first stage air treatment member (Fig. 4 elements A, A1, A2, A3, A4, and B; 2:63-66) comprising an air inlet (Fig. 3 the right side opening of element 16) and an air outlet (Fig. 3 elements 110, 110b, 110c, and 110d);
(c) a second stage air treatment member (Fig. 4 element C, 3:55-4:4) downstream from the first stage air treatment member (Fig. 4);
(d) a partially treated air flow path extending between the first stage air treatment member and the second stage air treatment member (Figs. 3-4, 3:55-4:4, where the portion of airflow flowing upward through the interior of element 110 to element 111e which still contains "ascending liquid" corresponds to a partially treated airflow path); and,
(e) a valve (Fig. 3 element 110a) associated with the partially treated air flow path (Figs. 3-4, where the valve is located in the partially treated air flow path) and operable to close the partially treated air flow path based on a water level in the first stage air treatment member (Fig. 4, 4:16-21 and 5:54-58), and
wherein the first stage air treatment member comprises a first cyclonic stage (Fig. 4 element A, 3:27-31), and the air outlet of the first stage air treatment member comprises a vortex finder (Fig. 3 element 110), and the valve moves within the vortex finder between a valve open position (position shown in Fig. 3) and a valve closed position (position shown in Fig. 4) in which the valve closes the partially treated air flow path (Fig. 4, 4:16-21 and 5:54-58).
Yoo fails to disclose the air inlet of the first stage air treatment member comprises a tangential air inlet.
Loveless is also concerned with a wet/dry surface cleaning apparatus and teaches the air inlet (Figs. 2 and 4B element 70) of the first stage air treatment member (Fig. 2, the space defined between elements 12 and 50) comprises a tangential air inlet (Figs. 2 and 4B element 70, 9:50-54 and claim 1). It 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 to modify the wet/dry surface cleaning apparatus of Yoo to have the air inlet of the first stage air treatment member comprise a tangential air inlet, as taught by Loveless, because Loveless teaches that a tangential air inlet allows for “items as have been vacuumed up are moved with the spinning air flow and tend to fall out as the air flow loses velocity” (9:54-56) and examiner finds that tangential airflow in a cyclonic separator improves separation efficiency by creating a natural vortex within the cyclonic separator.
Regarding claim 2, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the motor and fan assembly is positioned downstream of the first stage air treatment member (Yoo, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the vortex finder comprises a solid portion (Yoo, see annotated Fig. 3 below) located at an end wall of the first stage air treatment member (Yoo, see annotated Fig. 3' below) and the valve closes the solid portion (Yoo, Fig. 4, 3:3-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
202
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses the solid portion has an outlet port (Yoo, Fig. 3 element 110b) at a downstream end thereof (Yoo, Fig. 3) and the valve closes the outlet port (Yoo, Fig. 4, 3:3-8).
Regarding claim 9, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the valve comprises a mechanical valve (Yoo, Fig. 3 element 110a, 4:16-21, where "a float" corresponds to a mechanical valve).
Regarding claim 10, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the mechanical valve comprises a float valve (Yoo, Fig. 3 element 110a, 4:16-21, where "a float" corresponds to a float valve).
Regarding claim 14, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first stage air treatment member and the second stage air treatment member comprise at least one cyclone (Yoo, Figs. 3-4, where at least the area of the first stage air treatment member which extends from the air inlet through to element A corresponds to at least one cyclone and at least the area defined between elements 111a and 111c of the second stage air treatment member corresponds to at least one cyclone).
Regarding claim 21, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the float valve includes a buoyant member (Yoo, Fig. 3 element 110a) provided within the vortex finder (Yoo, Fig. 3) and the buoyant member blocks the partially treated air flow path in the closed position (Yoo, Fig. 4, 4:16-21 and 5:54-58).
Regarding claim 22, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the vortex finder extends into the chamber between a vortex finder base end (Yoo, Fig. 3, the general end associated with element 110c) and a vortex finder inner end (Yoo, Fig. 3, the general end associated with element 110b), and the valve moves from the inner end to the base end to close the partially treated air flow path (Yoo, Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 24, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses when the valve is in a valve partially closed position between the valve closed position and the valve open position, part of the screen is exterior to the air flow path through the vortex finder (Yoo, Figs. 3 and 4, where when the valve is between the closed and open position, the part of the screen which is beneath the water level is exterior to the air flow path through the vortex finder).
Claims 3, 6-8, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US5205014), in view of Loveless et al. (US5954863), hereinafter Loveless, and in further view of Conrad (US20200230622).
Regarding claim 3, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose that the vortex finder comprises a screen and the screen has an interior volume which is part of the partially treated air flow path.
Conrad is also concerned with a surface cleaning apparatus and teaches the vortex finder (Fig. 2 element 208, 0276) comprises a screen (Fig. 2 element 212, 0276) and the screen has an interior volume (the interior volume defined by the screen (212) which extends to element 204) which is part of the partially treated air flow path (0276 and 0277, where the screen filtering "large dirt particles and debris" while still having a pre-motor filter downstream of the screen means that the air flow path in the interior volume of the screen is part of a partially treated air flow path). It 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 to modify the wet/dry surface cleaning apparatus of Yoo, as modified, to have the vortex finder comprise a screen where the screen has an interior volume which is part of the partially treated air flow path, as taught by Conrad, because Conrad teaches that the screen is used to "remove large dirt particles and debris" from the air flow (0276), which examiner finds would increase the filtration capability of the wet/dry surface cleaning apparatus of Yoo by adding an addition filtration element which can filter out large particles in the case that the first stage air treatment member fails to filter out any large particles.
Regarding claim 6, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the screen is located at an inner end of the solid portion that is spaced from an end wall of the first stage air treatment member (Yoo, see annotated Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 3’ above).
Regarding claim 7, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the valve is positioned in the interior volume (Yoo, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the vortex finder comprises a solid portion (Yoo, see annotated Fig. 3 above) located at an end wall of the first stage air treatment member (Yoo, see annotated Fig. 3' above), the screen is located at an inner end of the solid portion that is spaced from the end wall (Yoo, see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Yoo, as modified, fails to disclose that the solid portion has a length in a direction of flow therethrough that is 0.5 - 4, 1 - 2.5 or 1.1 - 1.5 times a diameter of the air inlet of the first stage air treatment member. However, pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-A, it 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 to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size (in this case, the length of the solid portion, the diameter of the air inlet, or both the length of the solid portion and the diameter of the air inlet) in adapting the wet/dry surface cleaning apparatus for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant does not discuss this limitation in the provided specification and therefore there is no criticality provided by the specification for this limitation.
Regarding claim 23, Yoo, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the valve comprises a buoyant member (Yoo, Fig. 3 element 110a) positioned in the interior volume (Yoo, Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/21/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Yoo (US5205014) in view of Loveless et al. (US5954863), hereinafter Loveless.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Yoo fails to disclose “the first stage air treatment member comprises a first cyclonic stage, the air inlet of the first stage air treatment member comprises a tangential air inlet, and the air outlet of the first stage air treatment member comprises a vortex finder, and the valve moves within the vortex finder between a valve open position and a valve closed position in which the valve closes the partially treated air flow path” because “tub 19 of Yoo is not a cyclone chamber, the inlet is not a tangential inlet, and the outlet does not include a vortex finder”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the airflow arrows shown in Fig. 3 of Yoo shows the airflow in element B (shown in Fig. 4) to be curving from the center to the outside walls and then curving back into the vortex finder (110) which examiner considers cyclonic flow. Examiner further finds that Applicant has argued that element 110 is not a vortex finder, but does not supply any reasoning as to why element 110 does not read on a vortex finder. If Applicant is arguing that element 110 does not read on a vortex finder because the chamber B does not have cyclonic flow, examiner finds that, as discussed above, chamber B does have cyclonic flow and therefore element 110 does read on a vortex finder. Regarding the tangential inlet, while examiner agrees that Yoo does not disclose a tangential inlet, examiner finds that Yoo in view of Loveless does disclose a tangential outlet. See rejection of claim 1 above.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights