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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 March, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB2490256A, previously presented) in view of Reindle (US 2005/0065662, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Lawrence teaches a handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1) comprising:
a vacuum motor (Ref. 24, Fig. 2);
a main body sensor (Ref. 31&33, fig. 4) disposed in a main body (Ref. 3&14, fig. 2), the main body sensor (31) configured to sense motion and orientation of the handheld vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9]) and generate first sensor signals based on the sensed motion and orientation of the handheld vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9] describes the first sensing the motion and at least an orientation of the vacuum);
a cleaner head (Ref. 15, Fig. 1);
one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 2) disposed in the cleaner head (Fig. 1-2), the one or more diagnostic sensors (21) configured to sense parameters of the cleaner head ([Pg. 6, Lines 13-18] describes sense parameters of the head to indicate force or motion and if the cleaner head is in use) and generate second sensor signals based on the sensed parameters of the cleaner head ([Pg. 6, Lines 20-25] describes sending a signal based on the sensed parameters); and
a controller ([Pg. 9, Line 5-12] describe a power management system) configured to:
process the generated first and second sensor signals ([Pg. 7, Lines 3-6]) to determine whether the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used by a user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activate the vacuum motor from a deactivated state ([Pg. 10, Lines 4-20] describes detecting a user picking up the vacuum from a deactivated state (idle mode) and automatically powering up the motor).
Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach the cleaning head having an agitator and an agitator motor arranged to rotate the agitator, and one or more diagnostic sensors wherein the sensed parameters of the cleaning head comprise one or both of a current of the agitator motor and a pressure applied to a cleaner head. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with an agitator and a controller and can be considered analogous art. Reindle further teaches a cleaner head (Ref, 14, Fig. 1-2) having an agitator motor (Ref. 100, Fig. 3, [0050] describes “the motor is housed in the brush”) arranged to rotate an agitator (Ref. 54, Fig. 2&3, [0050&0058] describes “…the brush 54 and the brush motor 100 can be combined to form a belt-less brush motor. In a belt-less brush motor, as is known, the motor is housed in the brush…”) and one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 98, Fig. 3) configured to sense parameters and generate sensor signals based on the sensed parameters (Fig. 3, [0059-0060] describes “The overcurrent sensor 98, in combination with the sensor processor 90, can detect an unsafe current level in the brush motor 100… the sensor processor 90 may communicate the overcurrent condition information to the controller processor so that additional appropriate actions can be taken during in overcurrent condition”), wherein the sensed parameters comprise a current of the agitator motor ([0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner head, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with an agitator motor and one or more diagnostic sensor that senses a current of the agitator motor, as taught by Reindle, to power the agitator for more efficient cleaning and to detect an unsafe current level of the brush motor when the handheld vacuum cleaner picks up items that can jam the agitator ([0059]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawrence further teaches wherein determining that the handheld vacuum cleaner actively being used by the user comprises determining that the user is holding and/or manoeuvring the handheld vacuum cleaner in manner indicative of a vacuum cleaning operation ([Pg. 9, Lines 20-21] describes powering down the motor).
Regarding Claim 3, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawrence further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the vacuum motor in response to determining that the handheld vacuum cleaner is no longer actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 20-21] describes powering down the motor).
Regarding Claim 4, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Lawrence further teaches wherein determining that the handheld vacuum cleaner is no longer actively being used by the user comprises determining that the user has not been holding and/or manoeuvring the handheld vacuum cleaner in a manner indicative of vacuum cleaning operation for a pre-determined period of time ([Pg. 7, Line33-34 - Pg. 8, Lines 1-2] describe associating different sensor signals to a time).
Regarding Claim 5, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Lawrence further teaches wherein the pre-determined period of time is 20 seconds ([Pg. 9, Lines 23-28] describe the vacuum has a predetermined period of time of 20 seconds). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical. As such, it would have been routine optimization to have a predetermined period of time between 0.5 and 5 seconds as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the predetermined period of time will have a specific length, and finding the correct time for controller to shut off the motor when not in use to save electricity would address design needs and market demands.
Regarding Claim 6, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawrence further teaches wherein the controller is configured to process the first and second sensor signals in combination to determine whether the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used both when the vacuum motor is activated and when the vacuum motor is deactivated ([Pg. 10, Lines 13-14] describes the controller detecting both signals to either power up the motor or remain idle).
Regarding Claim 7, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawrence further teaches wherein the first sensor signals are based only on sensed motion of the handheld vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9] describes the first sensing the motion using motion sensors).
Regarding Claim 11, Lawrence teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the controller is configured to process the first and second sensor signals by performing a pre-processing step ([Pg. 7, Line33-34 - Pg. 8, Lines 1-2] describe a pre-processing step of associating different sensor signals to a time) and a classification step ([Pg. 8, Lines 12-21] describe the controller detects where a signal is a first or second signal).
Regarding Claim 12, Lawrence teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the pre-processing step comprises extracting features from time portions of the first and second sensor signals ([Pg. 7, Line33-34 - Pg. 8, Lines 1-2] describe a pre-processing step of associating different sensor signals to a time).
Regarding Claim 13, Lawrence teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the pre-processing step comprises filtering the first and second sensor signals ([Pg. 8, Lines 12-21] describe the controller detects where a signal is a first or second signal).
Regarding Claim 16, Lawerence teaches a method of operating a handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1) comprising:
generating first sensor signals based on sensed motion and orientation of the handheld vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9]) using a main body sensor (Ref. 31&33, fig. 4) disposed in a main body of the handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 3&14, fig. 2), the main body sensor sensing motion and orientation of the handheld vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9] describes the first sensing the motion and some lateral orientation of the vacuum when moving);
generating second sensor signals by one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 2) disposed in a cleaner head (Ref. 15, Fig. 1, [Pg. 6, Lines 20-25] describes sending a signal based on the sensed parameters) comprising the diagnostic sensors sensing parameters of the cleaner head (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Lines 20-25] describes sending a signal based on the sensed parameters), the second sensor signals based on sensed parameters of the cleaner head ([Pg. 6, Lines 20-25] describes sending a signal based on the sensed parameters);
processing the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the handheld vacuum cleaner from a deactivated state ([Pg. 10, Lines 4-20] describes detecting a user picking up the vacuum from a deactivated state (idle mode) and automatically powering up the motor).
Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach the cleaning head having an agitator and an agitator motor arranged to rotate the agitator, and one or more diagnostic sensors wherein the sensed parameters of the cleaning head comprise one or both of a current of the agitator motor and a pressure applied to a cleaner head. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with an agitator and a controller and can be considered analogous art. Reindle further teaches a cleaner head (Fig. 1) having an agitator motor (Ref. 100, Fig. 3, [0050] describes “the motor is housed in the brush”) arranged to rotate an agitator (Ref. 54, Fig. 2&3, [0050&0058] describes “…the brush 54 and the brush motor 100 can be combined to form a belt-less brush motor. In a belt-less brush motor, as is known, the motor is housed in the brush…”) and one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 98, Fig. 3). Configured to sense parameters and generate sensor signals based on the sensed parameters (Fig. 3, [0059-0060] describes “The overcurrent sensor 98, in combination with the sensor processor 90, can detect an unsafe current level in the brush motor 100… the sensor processor 90 may communicate the overcurrent condition information to the controller processor so that additional appropriate actions can be taken during in overcurrent condition”), wherein the sensed parameters comprise a current of the agitator motor ([0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner head, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with an agitator motor and one or more diagnostic sensor that senses a current of the agitator motor, as taught by Reindle, to power the agitator for more efficient cleaning and to detect an unsafe current level of the brush motor when the handheld vacuum cleaner picks up items that can jam the agitator ([0059]).
Regarding Claim 17, Lawerence teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer program comprising a set of instructions, which, when executed by a computerised device ([Pg. 9, Line 5-12] describe a power management system), cause the computerised device to perform a method of operating a handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
generating first sensor signals based on sensed motion and orientation of the handheld vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9]) using a main body sensor (Ref. 31&33, fig. 4) disposed in a main body of the handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 3&14, fig. 2), the main body sensor sensing motion and orientation of the handheld vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9] describes the first sensing the motion and some lateral orientation of the vacuum when moving);
generating second sensor signals by one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 2) disposed in a cleaner head (Ref. 15, Fig. 1, [Pg. 6, Lines 20-25] describes sending a signal based on the sensed parameters) comprising the diagnostic sensors sensing parameters of the cleaner head (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Lines 20-25] describes sending a signal based on the sensed parameters), the second sensor signals based on sensed parameters of the cleaner head ([Pg. 6, Lines 20-25] describes sending a signal based on the sensed parameters);
processing the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the handheld vacuum cleaner from a deactivated state ([Pg. 10, Lines 4-20] describes detecting a user picking up the vacuum from a deactivated state (idle mode) and automatically powering up the motor).
Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach the cleaning head having an agitator and an agitator motor arranged to rotate the agitator, and one or more diagnostic sensors wherein the sensed parameters of the cleaning head comprise one or both of a current of the agitator motor and a pressure applied to a cleaner head. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with an agitator and a controller and can be considered analogous art. Reindle further teaches a cleaner head (Fig. 1) having an agitator motor (Ref. 100, Fig. 3, [0050] describes “the motor is housed in the brush”) arranged to rotate an agitator (Ref. 54, Fig. 2&3, [0050&0058] describes “…the brush 54 and the brush motor 100 can be combined to form a belt-less brush motor. In a belt-less brush motor, as is known, the motor is housed in the brush…”) and one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 98, Fig. 3). Configured to sense parameters and generate sensor signals based on the sensed parameters (Fig. 3, [0059-0060] describes “The overcurrent sensor 98, in combination with the sensor processor 90, can detect an unsafe current level in the brush motor 100… the sensor processor 90 may communicate the overcurrent condition information to the controller processor so that additional appropriate actions can be taken during in overcurrent condition”), wherein the sensed parameters comprise a current of the agitator motor ([0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner head, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with an agitator motor and one or more diagnostic sensor that senses a current of the agitator motor, as taught by Reindle, to power the agitator for more efficient cleaning and to detect an unsafe current level of the brush motor when the handheld vacuum cleaner picks up items that can jam the agitator ([0059]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches one or more diagnostic sensors (21&23) disposed in the cleaner head (Fig. 1-2). Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller and can be considered analogous art. Reindle further teaches a time of flight sensor (Ref. 96, Fig. 3, [0055]) configured to sense the proximity of objects to the time of flight sensor ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse); and
the sensed parameters of the cleaner head comprise the proximity of objects to the time of flight sensor ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse). Given Lawerence as modified teaches a motion sensor and the time of flight sensor is a proximity sensor to detect if the device is moving towards and away the floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion sensors, as taught by Lawerence, with the time of flight sensors configured to sense the proximity of objects to the time of flight sensor, as taught by Reidle, to achieve the predicable result of detecting movement of the handheld vacuum cleaner and to add further functionality of determine if the device is in proper contact with a surface or if the surface area is hazardous ([0056]).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence in view of Reindle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arrow (NPL, https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/imu-principles-and-applications).
Regarding Claim 8, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first sensor comprises a motion sensor made up of multiple different sensors ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9] describes a motion sensor). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach an inertial measurement unit. However, it is old and well known in the art that an inertial measurement unit is a type of motion sensor made up of a variety of sensors to track the motion of a device and can be put into a variety of devices ("What is an IMU used for"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the motion sensor, as taught in Lawerence as modified, be comprised as an inertial measurement unit, as taught by Arrow, because it is old and well known in the art that an inertial measurement unit is a type of motion sensor and to add further functionality of measuring a variety of factors ([How does an IMU Work?]) to yield the predictable result of detecting motion of a cleaning head.
Regarding Claim 18, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the one or more diagnostic sensors (21&23) comprises a motion sensor made up of multiple different sensors ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9] describes a motion sensor) configured to sense motion and orientation of the cleaner head([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9]); and the sensed parameters of the cleaner head comprise the motion and orientation of the cleaner head ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9] describes the first sensing the motion and some lateral orientation of the vacuum when moving). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach an inertial measurement unit. However, it is old and well known in the art that an inertial measurement unit is a type of motion sensor made up of a variety of sensors to track the motion of a device and can be put into a variety of devices ("What is an IMU used for"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the motion sensor, as taught in Lawerence as modified, be comprised as an inertial measurement unit, as taught by Arrow, because it is old and well known in the art that an inertial measurement unit is a type of motion sensor and to add further functionality of measuring a variety of factors ([How does an IMU Work?]) to yield the predictable result of detecting motion of a cleaning head.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence in view of Reindle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Briscoe (5,922,968).
Regarding Claim 10, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 2) disposed in the cleaner head (Fig. 1) can be a force sensor configured to sense a force applied to the cleaning head (Pg. 6, Lines 13-18] describes sense parameters of the head to indicate force) and
the sensed parameters of the cleaner head comprise a force applied to the cleaner head ([Pg. 6, Lines 13-18] describes sense parameters of the head to indicate force). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure applied to the cleaner head, wherein the pressure sensor sense the pressure applied to a soleplate of the cleaner head. Briscoe teaches a vacuum with one or more diagnostic sensors disposed in the cleaner head and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Briscoe further teaches one or more diagnostic sensors comprising a pressure sensor ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51]) configured to sense a pressure applied to the cleaner head ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51] describes “load sensors register a positive pressure on the brush head”), wherein the pressure sensor senses the pressure applied to a soleplate of the cleaner head (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51] describes “load sensors register a positive pressure on the brush head”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner head one or more diagnostic sensors, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure applied to the cleaner head, as taught by Briscoe, to send a signal to a controller to detect when the brush head touches the floor ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence in view of Reindle as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Broz (2021/0030226, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 14, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches the controller is configured to determine whether the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used by a user based on an output ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21] describes detecting the signals to shut down power to the motor or to continue the power). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using machine learning. Broz teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller to process various input data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broz further teaches wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning), wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with a classifying system using machine learning, as taught by Broz, to provide more efficient and customized recommendations for actions in response to data from the machine to achieve the predictable result of determining if the device should be on or off ([0030-0032]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the machine learning classifier comprises one or more of: an artificial neural network, a random forest and a support- vector machine. Broz teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller to process various input data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broz further teaches wherein the machine learning classifier comprises one or more of: an artificial neural network, a random forest and a support- vector machine ([0017&0032] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning including artificial neural networks). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with a classifying system using an artificial neural network, as taught by Broz, to provide more efficient and customized recommendations for actions in response to data from the machine to achieve the predictable result of determining if the device should be on or off ([0030-0032]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence in view of Reindle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jyouraku (5,155,885, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 20, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches the one or more diagnostic sensors (21&23) disposed in the cleaner head (Fig. 1-2) provide the sensed parameters of the cleaner head to the controller ([Pg. 6, Lines 20-25]) and the controller is disposed in the main body of the handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 2). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach the cleaner head is detachable from the main body of the handheld vacuum cleaner. Jyouraku teaches a vacuum cleaner with a floor nozzle and stalk and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums. Jyouraku further teaches one or more detachable cleaning heads (Ref. 8,9,&10, Fig. 1) from the main body of the vacuum (Fig. 1, [Col. 8, Lines 12-16]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning head, as taught by Lawerence as modified, to be detachable, as taught by Jyouraku, to allow from the user to clean different spaces more efficiently by allowing different attachments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the previous claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 02 July, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1, 16, and 17, applicant has amended the claims thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art of Lawerence and Davis and Reindle fails to teach an agitator driven by an electric motor and have sensed parameters based upon a current of the agitator motor and/or a pressure applied to the cleaner head has been fully considered and is persuasive. However, examiner has applied Reindle to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Reindle teaches a cleaner head (Ref, 14, Fig. 1-2) having an agitator motor (Ref. 100, Fig. 3, [0050] describes “the motor is housed in the brush”) arranged to rotate an agitator (Ref. 54, Fig. 2&3, [0050&0058] describes “…the brush 54 and the brush motor 100 can be combined to form a belt-less brush motor. In a belt-less brush motor, as is known, the motor is housed in the brush…”) and one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 98, Fig. 3) Configured to sense parameters and generate sensor signals based on the sensed parameters (Fig. 3, [0059-0060] describes “The overcurrent sensor 98, in combination with the sensor processor 90, can detect an unsafe current level in the brush motor 100… the sensor processor 90 may communicate the overcurrent condition information to the controller processor so that additional appropriate actions can be taken during in overcurrent condition”), wherein the sensed parameters comprise a current of the agitator motor ([0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner head, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with an agitator motor and one or more diagnostic sensor that senses a current of the agitator motor, as taught by Reindle, to power the agitator for more efficient cleaning and to detect an unsafe current level of the brush motor when the handheld vacuum cleaner picks up items that can jam the agitator ([0059]).
Further applicant’s arguments the Lawerence and Davis fail to teach activating the vacuum motor from a deactivated state in response to active use from the user has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Lawerence teaches that the vacuum motor can be deactivated and placed in an idle state with the vacuum motor off and that within a certain period of time if the sensor detect the user has returned to use the vacuum cleaner, the vacuum cleaner will power the motor from the idle state ([Pg. 10, Lines 4-20] describes detecting a user picking up the vacuum from a deactivated state (idle mode) and automatically powering up the motor).
Regarding Claim 6, applicant’s arguments that Lawerence does not disclose a single-fusion approach in which the first and second sensor signals are processed together has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner notes the term “process the first and second sensor signals in combination” under broadest reasonable interpretation is interpreted to mean that they are received and processed at the same time. Lawerence teaches the controller controls the power management system based upon detection of both the first and second signals ([Pg. 10, Lines 13-20]). If applicant intends for the limitation to have the first and second signals interact or are resultant of one another such a limitation is not required.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, In response to applicant's argument that Arrow is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Arrow describes an IMU that is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to sense motion of a body in three dimensional space. Examiner was merely using Arrow to explain that an IMU is a type of motion sensor and such a sensor can be implemented into Lawerence as modified. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, applicant’s arguments that the Reindle reference does not teach or suggest using a current of the agitator motor, processed in combination with the main body motion and orientation signals that the handheld vacuum is being used to activate the vacuum motor from a deactivated state has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner notes that the features which applicant relies upon (i.e. comparing both motion/orientation and current to determine if the vacuum cleaner is being used) are not recited in the rejected claims. The claims currently only require that the first and second sensor signals are processed to determine whether the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user. Thereby if the motion/orientation signals are indicating the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user the limitation would still be met. However assuming arguendo, Lawerence teaches processing the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the handheld vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]). While Reindle teaches that the first sensor signal can be a current signal ([0059-0060] describes “The overcurrent sensor 98, in combination with the sensor processor 90, can detect an unsafe current level in the brush motor 100… the sensor processor 90 may communicate the overcurrent condition information to the controller processor so that additional appropriate actions can be taken during in overcurrent condition”). Given that the current signal from Reindle is to be processed by a controller for any appropriate action, the modification of one of the diagnostic sensors, as taught by Lawerence, to read a current signal from the motor, as taught by Reindle, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner is merely swapping one diagnostic sensor in Lawerence for another variable that can tell if the motor is on or off to help determine the activated vs deactivated state of the vacuum.
Regarding Claim 10, applicant has amended the claims thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the pressure sensor senses the pressure applied to a soleplate of the cleaner head has been fully considered and is persuasive. However, examiner has applied Briscoe to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Briscoe teaches one or more diagnostic sensors comprising a pressure sensor ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51]) configured to sense a pressure applied to the cleaner head ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51] describes “load sensors register a positive pressure on the brush head”), wherein the pressure sensor senses the pressure applied to a soleplate of the cleaner head (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51] describes “load sensors register a positive pressure on the brush head”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner head one or more diagnostic sensors, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure applied to the cleaner head, as taught by Briscoe, to send a signal to a controller to detect when the brush head touches the floor ([Col. 2, Lines 48-51]).
Regarding Claims 14&15, applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach the controller is configured to determine the vacuum is actively being used based on the classifier output has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Broz teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller to process various input data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broz further teaches wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning), wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning) and based upon these classifications the vacuum can take actions ([0030-0032]). ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with a classifying system using machine learning, as taught by Broz, to provide more efficient and customized recommendations for actions in response to data from the machine to achieve the predictable result of determining if the device should be on or off ([0030-0032]).
Regarding Claim 20, In response to applicant's argument that the nozzle Jyouraku would not be compatible with Lawerence, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, examiner is not replacing the heads/nozzles of Lawerence with the heads of Jyouraku. Examiner is using Jyouraku one or more detachable cleaning heads (Ref. 8,9,&10, Fig. 1) with sensor from are detachable from the main body of the vacuum (Fig. 1, [Col. 8, Lines 12-16]). Given this teaching of Jyouraku, making the cleaning head of Lawerence detachable, to allow from the user to clean different spaces more efficiently by allowing different attachments.
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 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