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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-20 recites “the vacuum cleaner” that should be “the handheld vacuum cleaner”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “a main body”.
Claims 2-15 and 18-20 are rejected due to the being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-7, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB2490256A, previously presented) in view of Davis (US 2004/0255426, 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 the main body (Ref. 3&14, fig. 2), the main body sensor (31) configured to sense motion and orientation of the vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9]) and generate first sensor signals based on the sensed motion and orientation of the 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 vacuum cleaner is actively being used by a user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activate the vacuum motor ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21] describes detecting the signals to shut down power to the motor or to continue the power).
Lawrence fails to explicitly teach the cleaner head having an agitator. Davis teaches a vacuum cleaner with a cleaner head and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Davis teaches a cleaning head (Ref. 50, Fig. 2) of a vacuum cleaner (Fig.2) with an agitator (Ref. 84, Fig. 2). 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, with an agitator brush, as taught by Davis, to increase cleaning efficiency by beating dirt and debris from a surface ([0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawrence further teaches wherein determining that the vacuum cleaner actively being used by the user comprises determining that the user is holding and/or manoeuvring the 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 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 vacuum cleaner is no longer actively being used by the user comprises determining that the user has not been holding and/or manoeuvring the 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 vacuum cleaner is actively being used both when the vacuum motor is activated and when the vacuum motor is deactivated ([Pg. 8, Lines 31-33 - Pg. 9, Lines 1-21]).
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 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 vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9]) using a main body sensor (Ref. 31&33, fig. 4) disposed in a main body of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 3&14, fig. 2), the main body sensor sensing motion and orientation of the 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 vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21] describes detecting the signals to shut down power to the motor or to continue the power).
Lawrence fails to explicitly teach the cleaner head having an agitator. Davis teaches a vacuum cleaner with a cleaner head and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Davis teaches a cleaning head (Ref. 50, Fig. 2) of a vacuum cleaner (Fig.2) with an agitator (Ref. 84, Fig. 2). 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, with an agitator brush, as taught by Davis, to increase cleaning efficiency by beating dirt and debris from a surface ([0005]).
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 vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 12, Lines 5-9]) using a main body sensor (Ref. 31&33, fig. 4) disposed in a main body of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 3&14, fig. 2), the main body sensor sensing motion and orientation of the 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 vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21] describes detecting the signals to shut down power to the motor or to continue the power).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified 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 a 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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reindle (US 2005/0065662).
Regarding Claim 9, Lawrence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach an agitator motor, one or more diagnostic sensors disposed in the cleaning head comprise an agitator current sensor configured to sense the agitator motor current. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller and can be considered analogous art. Reindle further teaches wherein: the cleaner head further comprises an agitator motor (Ref. 100, Fig. 3) arranged to rotate the agitator ([0058]), the one or more diagnostic sensors (21&23) disposed in the cleaner head (Fig. 1) comprise an agitator current sensor (Ref. 98, Fig. 1) configured to sense the agitator motor current ([0059 & Abstract]), such that the sensed parameters of the cleaner head comprise the agitator motor current ([Abstract&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 and one or more diagnostic sensor, as taught by Lawerence, with an agitator and an agitator current sensor configured to sense the agitator motor current, as taught by Reindle, by using the known technique of controlling an agitator motor using the motor current to yield the predictable result of turning on and off an agitator motor and to prevent jams or damage to the agitator ([0060]).
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 todetect 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 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]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schulz (2010/0300489).
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. Schulz 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. Schulz further teaches one or more diagnostic sensors (Ref. 32, Fig. 2) disposed in a cleaner head (Ref. 18 ,Fig. 1, [0044]) comprise a pressure sensor (Ref. 32, Fig. 2, [0044]) configured to sense a pressure applied to the cleaner head ([0044&0049]); and
the sensed parameters of the cleaner head comprise a pressure applied to the cleaner head ([0044&0049]). 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 a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure applied to the cleaner head, as taught by Schulz, to help determine the negative pressure at the floor suction nozzle and control the negative pressure and keep air volume flow is held constant even when the dust bag fills up slowly and flow resistance rises [0052-0053].
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Broz (2021/0030226).
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 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 as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jyouraku (5,155,885).
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 vacuum cleaner (Fig. 2). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach the cleaner head is detachable from the main body of the 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gordon (2017/0000305), Conner (2004/0134018), Cheuvront (2017/0361468), and Reindle (US 7,424,766) teach vacuum cleaners with controllers that interpret data and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
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