DETAILED ACTION
SUCTION TOOL
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 01-09-2026 has been entered. Claims 1 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01-09-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's argument that prior art Hayashi fails to teach an auxiliary inlet in fluid communication with outlet and flow limiting device along auxiliary airflow path from an auxiliary inlet to a common outlet that is capable of assuming three different positions
Examiner respectfully indicates the claim requires an auxiliary inlet in fluid communication with the outlet via an auxiliary suction passage, where auxiliary suction passage includes a flow limiting device that is capable of obstructing airflow. Wherein the flow limiting device is movable between first and second configuration in response to the pressure changes within the main suction passage.
Prior art Hayashi discloses an auxiliary inlet (254, figure 7) and auxiliary passage (see figure 7) that in fluid communication with an outlet that connects to vacuum cleaner (see airflow G, figure 7 which in fluid communication outlet 253b due to flow limiting device 255 being semi-opened), a flow limiting device (see 255) that moves between first and second configuration via intermediate configuration in response to the pressure changes within main suction passage (see pages 1-15 of translated npl of Hayashi); wherein the flow limiting device is capable of having three different positions (see Hayashi discloses that the valve 255 capable of moving from open , semi closed, completely closed ; “An exhaust valve 255 that can be opened The exhaust valve 255 is completely closed by the air F sucked by the electric blower 112 and If the exhaust valve 255 is almost closed”). Also, the claim only requires that when the flow limiting device is in a first configuration, it obstructs airflow through the auxiliary suction passage less than when it’s in a second configuration, and be capable of moving to a second configuration via an intermediate configuration where it obstructs airflow to a greater extent within that second configuration in response to an increased negative pressure within the main suction passage, which prior art Hayashi discloses.
Further, In response to applicant's argument that Hayashi in operation fails to teach a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Additionally, regarding applicant’s argument Hayashi teaches away from the claimed flow-limiting device, because Hayashi omits disclosure of elastomeric material with valve 255. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the reference themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hayashi expressly states that valve bodies used within (see npl)
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: flow limiting device in claims 1-5,7-9,11-20.
Examiner is interpreting the flow limiting device as disclosed in applicant’s disclosure as deformable element made of elastomeric rubber (see para 0031 and 0052-0053) or equivalent structure.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,5,7,9-10,15-16,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2003199693A).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches
an outlet for connection to a vacuum cleaner (253b “On the other hand, when the suction body 106 is connected to the cleaner main body 101 for use”; figure 5 and 7);
a main inlet (253a, figure 7 in fluid communication with the outlet via a main suction passage (F, figure 7); and an auxiliary inlet (254, figure 7) in fluid communication with the outlet via an auxiliary suction passage (G, figure 7),
wherein:
the auxiliary suction passage includes a flow limiting device (255, figure 7) which is movable between first and second configurations (“an exhaust valve 255 that can be opened and closed ”), the flow limiting device obstructing air flow through the auxiliary suction passage to a greater extent when in the second configuration than when in the first configuration (figure 7); and wherein:
the flow limiting device is movable from the first configuration to the second configuration via an intermediate configuration (“If the exhaust valve 255 is almost closed so that only a small amount of air flow G”);
when in the intermediate configuration the flow limiting device obstructs air flow through the auxiliary suction passage to a greater extent (“If the exhaust valve 255 is almost closed so that only a small amount of air flow G”) than when in the first configuration but a lesser extent than when in the second configuration (“If the exhaust valve 255 is provided so as to be completely closed, the electric blower 11 provided in the cleaner body 101 will be described, it is possible to prevent a decrease in the air volume of the air F from the suction port of the suction body 106 due to the backflow air G from the exhaust port 254, and it is possible to maintain a high vacuum inside the suction body 106, so that high dust collection Can be achieved”); and
the flow limiting device is configured (capable of performing this action) to move from the first configuration to the intermediate configuration in response to the pressure within the main suction passage dropping beneath a higher predetermined threshold, and to move from the intermediate configuration to the second configuration in response to the pressure within the main suction passage dropping beneath a lower predetermined threshold. (“If the exhaust valve 255 is provided so as to be completely closed, the electric blower 11 provided in the cleaner body 101 will be described,it is possible to prevent a decrease in the air volume of the air F from the suction port of the suction body 106 due to the backflow air G from the exhaust port 254, and it is possible to maintain a high vacuum inside the suction body 106, so that high dust collection Can be achieved”)
Hayashi fails to explicitly teach that flow limiting is made of elastomeric rubber.
However Hayashi does disclose in different embodiment valves can be made from elastic bodies such as rubber and plastic ( For these valve bodies, elastic bodies such as rubber and plate springs made of plastic may be used.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayashi to have flow limiting device be made from elastomeric rubber based on the teachings of Hayashi. This modification would help ensure the flow limiting device has low rigidity and be easily deformable. (see Hayashi “material such as rubber having a relatively low rigidity so that it can be easily opened inward”)
Regarding claim 5, modified Hayashi teaches wherein the flow limiting device is configured to substantially close the auxiliary suction passage when in the second configuration (“If the exhaust valve 255 is provided so as to be completely closed”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hayashi teaches wherein the main suction passage (F, figure 7) and auxiliary suction (G, figure 7) passage intersect (figure 7) and form a common suction passage (209b, figure 7) which extends to the outlet.
Regarding 9, modified Hayashi teaches wherein the main suction passage includes a suction chamber (207, figure 7), and the auxiliary suction passage (G, figure 7) intersects the main suction passage downstream of the suction chamber.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hayashi teaches wherein the flow limiting device is biased to the first configuration, and is movable to the second configuration , against said bias, under action of air flowing through the auxiliary suction passage (For these valve bodies, elastic bodies such as rubber and plate springs made of plastic may be used).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hayashi teaches A vacuum cleaner (abstract, 101,106; figure 5) comprising the suction tool according to claim 1 (figure 7).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi teaches an outlet for connection to a vacuum cleaner (253b “On the other hand, when the suction body 106 is connected to the cleaner main body 101 for use”; figure 5 and 7);
a main inlet (253a, figure 7) in fluid communication with the outlet via a main suction passage (F, figure 7);
an auxiliary inlet (254, figure 7) in fluid communication with the outlet via an auxiliary suction passage (G, figure 7);
a rotatable brush bar (201, figure 7) and
an electric motor (220, figure 7) configured to drive the brush bar,
wherein:
the auxiliary suction passage (G, figure 7) includes a flow limiting device (255, figure 7) which is movable between first and second configurations (“an exhaust valve 255 that can be opened and closed ”), the flow limiting device obstructing air flow through the auxiliary suction passage to a greater extent when in the second configuration than when in the first configuration (figure 7); and
the flow limiting device is configured to move to the second configuration in response to the pressure within the main suction passage dropping beneath a predetermined threshold. (“If the exhaust valve 255 is provided so as to be completely closed, the electric blower 11 provided in the cleaner body 101 will be described,it is possible to prevent a decrease in the air volume of the air F from the suction port of the suction body 106 due to the backflow air G from the exhaust port 254, and it is possible to maintain a high vacuum inside the suction body 106, so that high dust collection Can be achieved”)
Regarding claim 20, modified Hayashi teaches wherein the flow limiting device is configured to substantially close the auxiliary suction passage when in the second configuration (“If the exhaust valve 255 is provided so as to be completely closed”).
Claim(s) 2-3,17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2003199693A) as applied to claims 1 and 16 in view of Hirota (WO2017183254A).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, modified Hayashi teaches all limitations stated above and rotatable brush bar (201, figure 7) ,but fails to teach wherein the auxiliary suction passage is associated with a drive mechanism of the brush bar.
Hirota teaches electric vacuum cleaner suction port body that includes an electric motor (44, figure 9) of the brush bar (43, figure 9) and auxiliary suction passage (32, figure 9) that can cool the electric motor (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayashi to have wherein the auxiliary suction passage is associated with a drive mechanism of the brush bar based on the teachings of Hirota. This modification would help cool the electric motor. (see Hirota abstract)
Regarding claim 3, further modified Hayashi wherein the drive mechanism comprises an electric motor (see Hayashi 220, figure 7), but fails to teach the auxiliary suction passage runs through or near the electric motor so that air running through the auxiliary suction passage can cool the electric motor. (see Hirota teaches electric vacuum cleaner suction port body that includes an electric motor (44, figure 9) and auxiliary suction passage (32, figure 9) that can cool the electric motor (abstract)).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hayashi teaches wherein the auxiliary suction passage runs through or near the electric motor so that air running through the auxiliary suction passage can cool the electric motor. (see Hirota abstract)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2003199693A) in view of Hirota (WO2017183254A) as applied to claim 2 further in view of Stephens (GB2543310A) cited in ids.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi as modified in claim 2 teaches all limitations but fails to teach the brush bar is hollow, and the auxiliary suction passage extends into the brush bar.
Stephens discloses a cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner (abstract) that has a primary inlet (10, figure 6), secondary inlet (11, figure 3) , a hollow brush bar (26, figures 2 page 1, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayashi to have brush bar’s hollow structure as taught by Stephens . This modification would help use space in a more efficient way in the suction tool. (see Stephens, figure 2)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2003199693A) in view of Hirota (WO2017183254A) and Stephens (GB2543310A) cited in ids.
Regarding claim 19, modified Hayashi teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the brush bar is hollow, and the auxiliary suction passage extends into the brush bar.
Stephens discloses a cleaner head for a vacuum cleaner (abstract) that has a primary inlet (10, figure 6), secondary inlet (11, figure 3) , a hollow brush bar (26, figures 2 page 1, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayashi to have brush bar’s hollow structure as taught by Stephens . This modification would help use space in a more efficient way in the suction tool. (see Stephens, figure 2)
Hirota teaches electric vacuum cleaner suction port body that includes an electric motor (44, figure 9) of the brush bar (43, figure 9) and auxiliary suction passage (32, figure 9) that can cool the electric motor (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayashi to have wherein the auxiliary suction passage is associated with a drive mechanism of the brush bar based on the teachings of Hirota. This modification would help cool the electric motor. (see Hirota abstract)
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 SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723