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 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: communication portion, charging mechanism, arrangement portion, and engagement structure in claims 3, 4, and 5.
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 3 recites “communicating portions that communicate with each other...”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as communication holes and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [0027] of the specification of the instant application).
Claim 4 recites “a charging mechanism configured to charge the battery…”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a structure to feed electric power from one conducting portion to another to charge the battery and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [0027] of the specification of the instant application).
Claim 5 recites:
“an arrangement portion configured to allow the second current conduction portion…”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a grove shape and equivalent structures thereof to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [0034] of the specification of the instant application);and
“…an engagement structure to be engaged with the support column portion”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a structure to engage the support column and equivalent structures thereof to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [0056] of the specification of the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Oka (US 2021/0093141 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kato (US 2004/0088820 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Oka teaches An extension pipe (Ref. 20, Fig. 1&13c, [0041]) for an electric vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1, [0041]), the extension pipe being configured to allow a suction tool (Ref. 40, Fig. 1, [0041]) having a suction port for sucking dust (Ref. 42, Fig. 23) to be connected to one end side (Fig. 6A-B) in a pipe axis direction (See annotated Fig. 13 below) and a vacuum cleaner main body (Ref. 10, Fig. 1, [0041]) to be connected to another end side in the pipe axis direction, the extension pipe comprising:
a power-receiving portion (Ref. 22&23, Fig. 13A, top connectors) configured to receive and supply electric power from the battery to the suction tool (Ref. 13, fig. 2, [0043]) provided to the vacuum cleaner main body (Fig. 13c),
a power-feeding portion (Ref. 22&23, Fig. 13A, bottom connectors) configured to feed electric power from the battery to the suction tool (Fig. 13c shows conductive wires that would be capable of receiving and supplying electric power to be fed from the battery to a suction tool),
wherein the power-receiving portion includes:
a first current conducting portion (Ref. 24a2, Fig. 18a, top connector) to be connected to the vacuum cleaner main body on the another end side in the pipe axis direction (Fig. 1, [0132]);
a second current conducting portion (Ref. 24a3, fig. 14, top connector) provided closer to the one end side in the pipe axis direction than the first current conducting portion; and
a power-receiving line (Reef. 24a1, Fig. 19, top line) configured to electrically connect the first current conducting portion and the second current conducting portion (Fig. 19), and
wherein the power-feeding portion includes:
a fourth current conducting portion (Ref. 24a2, Fig. 14, bottom connector) to be connected to the vacuum cleaner main body on the another end side in the pipe axis direction (Fig. 1, [0132]);
a fifth current conducting portion (Ref. 24a3, fig. 14, bottom connector) to be connected to the suction tool on the one end side in the pipe axis direction (Fig. 1); and
a power-feeding line (Reef. 24a1, Fig. 19, bottom line) configured to electrically connect the fourth current conducting portion and the fifth current conducting portion (fig. 19);
wherein the extension pipe further comprises a pipe axis direction routing portion (Ref. 24b, Fig. 18A) and an intersecting direction routing portion (Ref. 24C, Fig. 20A & 22 shows the intersection direction routing portion having ribs (24c1) that intersects with the pipe axis direction perpendicularly), and wherein the power-receiving line (24a1, top connector Fig. 19) is routed in the pipe axis direction routing portion and inside the intersecting direction routing portion that intersects with the pipe axis direction (Fig. 21-22 show the power receiving line shows the line fed through and inside the intersecting direction routing portion due to the protrusions and in the pipe axis direction),
wherein the power-receiving line (24a1) is routed from the first current conducting portion (24a2) along the pipe axis direction (Fig. 13A below) in the pipe axis direction routing portion (24b, Fig. 19), and is further routed in the intersecting direction routing portion from a front side (Fig. 14, top side of the pipe), toward a back side of the extension pipe (Ref. 18B, bottom side of the pipe) in a direction intersecting with the pipe axis direction (Fig. 20A), and
wherein the power-feeding line is routed along the pipe axis direction routing portion (Fig. 18-19).
Assuming arguendo that Oka fails to explicitly teach a power-receiving portion configured to feed electric power from the battery to the suction tool. Kato teaches a vacuum cleaner with connectors and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Kato further teaches the concept of wires attached to connectors to transfer charge from a base located on the floor to the batteries in the main housing (Fig. 3&43, [0153-0154]). Given the teachings of Kato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the conducting portions and power receiving lines, as taught by Oka, to feed electric power from the battery to the suction tool, as taught by Kato, by duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI A) to achieve the predictable result of transferring electricity from one connection to another.
PNG
media_image1.png
233
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Oka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a pipe portion (Ref. 21, fig. 14 ,[0120]) configured to define an air passage (Fig. 1, [0120]); and a cover portion (Ref. 24b, Fig. 19) configured to define, in cooperation with the pipe portion, a space for arrangement of the power-receiving line (Fig. 18-19).
Regarding Claim 3, Oka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches further comprising through holes (Ref. 24c11, Fig. 21, [0156]) that penetrate in a direction that intersects with the pipe axis direction in the pipe portion (Fig. 21), in the cover portion, or between the pipe portion and the cover portion, wherein the power-receiving line is routed through the through holes to electrically connect the first current conducting portion and the second current conducting portion (Fig. 21, [0156]).
Claim 4-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oka (US 2021/0093141 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2016/0051109 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Oka teaches An electric vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1, [0041]), comprising:
a vacuum cleaner main body (Ref. 10, Fig. 1, [0041]) including a battery (Ref. 13, fig. 2, [0043]);
a suction tool (Ref. 40, Fig. 1, [0041]) having a suction port for sucking dust (Ref. 42, Fig. 23);
the extension pipe of claim 1 (As best understood, please see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Oka fails to explicitly teach a charging stand with a placement portion, support column portion. Hwang teaches an electric vacuum cleaner with various current conducting portions and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hwang further teaches a charging stand (Ref. 40, Fig. 6, [0062]) including a third current conducting portion (Ref. 423, Fig. 4, [0074]) and a charging mechanism (Ref. 43, Fig. 4, [0062]) configured to charge the battery ([0062]),
wherein the charging mechanism supplies electric power from an external power source (Fig. 4, [0062]) to the third current conducting portion so as to charge the battery ([0062]),
wherein the charging stand includes:
a placement portion (Ref. 41, Fig. 5, [0062]) configured to allow the suction tool to be placed thereon (Fig. 1); and
a support column portion (Ref. 42, Fig. 5, [0062]) that is configured to support the extension portion of a vacuum and is to be engaged with the extension portion (Fig. 1),
wherein, under a state in which the support column portion supports the extension portion and is engaged with the extension portion (Fig. 1, [0074]), the third current conducting portion and a second current conducting portion ([0074] describes terminals on the extension portion that interact with the third portion) are electrically connected to cause the charging mechanism to feed electric power from the third current conducting portion to the second current conducting portion so as to charge the battery ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a charging stand including a third conducting portion, placement portion, and support column portion, as taught by Hwang, to interact with the second conducting portion on an extension pole of an electric vacuum, as taught by Oka, to allow easier charging of the battery without having to remove or replace the battery ([0015]).
Regarding Claim 5, Oka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Oka further teaches an arrangement portion (Ref. 23a2, Fig. 14) in which terminals of the second current conducting portion (24a3) are arranged (Fig. 15), wherein the arrangement portion has an engaged portion (Ref. 23c3, Fig. 14, [0143]) to interact with a concave locking portion on a base (Ref. 42b, Fig. 23, [0143]). Hwang further teaches an arrangement portion (Ref. 38, Fig. 3, [0072]) with a current conducting portions ([0072] describes terminals on the arrangement portion that transfer power), wherein the arrangement portion forms an engaged portion ([0072] Fig. 1, describes an engagement structure of grooves) to be engaged with the support column of the charging station (Ref. 42, Fig. 5) and third conduction portions (423) that is used to secure the elongated body to the charging station ([0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arrangement portion and second conducting portion, as taught by Oka as modified, with the arrangement portion, engagement structure, and current conducting portion to be engaged with the support column, as taught by Hwang, to allow easier charging of the battery ([0015]) and for easier storage of the vacuum cleaner.
Regarding Claim 6, Oka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Hwang further teaches wherein the arrangement portion includes a receiving portion (Ref. 38, Fig. 3, [0072]) having a hollow shape (Fig. 3) with a first opening portion directed toward one side in the pipe axis direction ([0072] and Fig. 1, describes coupling opening grooves opening towards the longitudinal axis), and wherein the support column portion has a protruding portion (Ref. 422, Fig. 4, [0072]) to be inserted into the receiving portion through the first opening portion ([0072]).
Regarding Claim 7, Oka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and, as best understood, Hwang further teaches wherein the protruding portion (422) has the third conducting portion (423, Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 8, Oka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and, as best understood, Hwang further teaches wherein the receiving portion has a second opening portion ([0074] describes a second terminal on the receiving portion and Fig. 3 shows the receiving portion (38) within a recessed opening) on a side opposed to the support column portion (fig. 1&4 show that the receiving portion would be on opposed sides to the support column to connect together), and wherein the third current conducting portion (423) is connected to the second current conducting portion through the second opening portion ([0074] and Fig. 4-5 show t describes the third current conduction portions are electrically connected to charging terminals through the opening).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 February, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the pipe axis direction routing portion and the intersecting direction routing portion do not intersect each other have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Oka to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Oka teaches the pipe axis direction routing portion (24b) intersects the direction routing portion (24C) as seen in Fig. 20A in a lateral direction. Examiner notes the term intersects as any overlap. If applicant intends for the pipe axis direction routing portion to be through the direction routing portion such a limitation is not required by the claim.
Further, Applicant has amended the claim to recite “wherein the power-receiving line is routed from the first current conducting portion along the pipe axis direction in the pipe axis direction routing portion, and is further routed in the intersecting direction routing portion from a front side toward a back side of the extension pipe in a direction intersecting with the pipe axis direction, and wherein the power-feeding line is routed along the pipe axis direction routing portion” thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating a new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments in regards to Oka failing to teach the routing configurations of the power receiving line and the power feeding line have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Upon further review and consideration, examiner notes Oka still meets the limitation of claim 1, as in the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Oka teaches wherein the power-receiving line (24a1) is routed from the first current conducting portion (24a2) along the pipe axis direction (Fig. 13A below) in the pipe axis direction routing portion (24b, Fig. 19), and is further routed in the intersecting direction routing portion from a front side (Fig. 14, top side of the pipe), toward a back side of the extension pipe (Ref. 18B, bottom side of the pipe) in a direction intersecting with the pipe axis direction (Fig. 20A), and wherein the power-feeding line is routed along the pipe axis direction routing portion (Fig. 18-19).
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights