The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendments received in an RCE filing on March 10, 2026, amending Claim 1.
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “suction unit” in Claims 1 and 9-14, “mechanisms” in Claims 1 and 9, and “dirt dislodging elements” in Claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wellens US 2019/0328190 (hereafter Wellens).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 1 (Currently Amended): A vacuum cleaner (suction device 10) comprising:
a suction unit (handle member 12 and second section 26);
a first cleaning tool (complete assembly shown in Figure 7 below) attachable to the suction unit (through connection at joint 28), the first cleaning tool comprising a first dirt separator (assembly within region identified in Figure 7 below comprising: diverter structure 46, suction tube 18, and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 7 below for picking up liquid soils – see discussion below); and
a second cleaning tool (complete assembly shown in Figure 8 below) attachable to the suction unit (through connection at joint 28), the second cleaning tool comprising a second dirt separator (assembly within region identified in Figure 8 below comprising: outlet opening 36 and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 8 below for picking up solid soils – see discussion below),
wherein the first dirt separator and the second dirt separator employ different mechanisms for separating dirt from an airflow (Figure 7 assembly configured to separate liquid soil, Figure 8 assembly configured to separate solid soil),
wherein the first dirt separator (assembly within region identified in Figure 7 below comprising: diverter structure 46, suction tube 18, and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 7 below for picking up liquid soils) comprises a first dirt collection chamber (bottom portion of elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 7 below) inside the first dirt separator for collecting dirt (“liquid soil” is “soil present in a liquid or in a liquid form”) separated by the first dirt separator (picking up liquid soils), and wherein the second dirt separator (assembly within region identified in Figure 8 below comprising: outlet opening 36 and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 8 below for picking up solid soils) comprises a second dirt collection chamber (bottom portion of elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 8 below) inside the second dirt separator for collecting dirt separated by the second dirt separator (picking up solid soils).
The first dirt separator is defined as the diverter structure 46, suction tube 18, and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 7 for picking up liquid soils. In operation, a suction source connected to coupling member 30 that draws air/liquid into inlet opening 34, through suction tube 18, where it exhausts from outlet opening 36 into the elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24. A significant increase in cross sectional area inside first section 24 causes the airflow velocity to drop causing the liquid to fall out of the air flow continuing toward coupling member 30 providing an air/liquid separation as shown in the structure of the Figure 7 embodiment. Therefore, the cited structure of the diverter structure 46, suction tube 18, and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 7 provides the air/liquid separator by creating a scenario where the liquid separates from the airflow and is collected inside the first section 24.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second dirt separator is defined as the outlet opening 36 and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 as shown in Figure 8 for picking up solid soils. In operation, a suction source connected to coupling member 30 that draws air/dirt into inlet opening 34, where it exhausts from outlet opening 36 into the elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24. A significant increase in cross sectional area inside first section 24 causes the airflow velocity to drop causing the solid soils to fall out of the air flow continuing toward coupling member 30 providing an air/dirt separation as shown in the structure of the Figure 8 embodiment. Therefore, the cited structure of the outlet opening 36 and elongated tubular chamber inside first section 24 arranged as shown in Figure 8 provides the air/dirt separator by creating a scenario where the solid soil separates from the airflow and is collected inside the first section 24.
PNG
media_image2.png
579
1145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 2 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the cleaning tools (assembly shown in Figure 7 and assembly shown in Figure 8) comprises a suction inlet (suction nozzle 14) through which dirt from a surface is drawn into the vacuum cleaner (Paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 3 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the cleaning tools (assembly shown in Figure 7) comprises a first suction nozzle (inlet opening 34 as shown in Figure 7) attachable to the dirt separator, and a second, different suction nozzle (shown in Figures 4A and 4B) attachable to the dirt separator (Figure 4A and 4B).
Regarding Claim 4, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 4 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cleaning tool (assembly shown in Figure 7) comprises one or more first dirt-dislodging elements (squeegee or brush shown in Figure 7) for dislodging dirt from a surface to be cleaned, and the second cleaning tool (assembly shown in Figure 8) comprises one or more second, different dirt-dislodging elements (edges of inlet opening 34 shown in Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 5 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the cleaning tools (assembly shown in Figure 7 or assembly shown in Figure 8) comprises an agitator (rollers or brushes) moveable to agitate a surface to be cleaned, and a drive assembly for driving the agitator (Paragraphs [0052] and [0053]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 6 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein each dirt separator (assembly shown in Figure 7 and assembly shown in Figure 8) comprises a dirt collection chamber (tubular chamber of first section 24) for collecting dirt separated by the dirt separator.
Regarding Claim 8, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 8 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second dirt separator (assembly shown in Figure 8) comprises at least one of a filter, a mesh screen, an inertial separator, a gravitational separator (solid soil is separated by gravity as shown in Figure 8), and a rotating body that throws dirt into a dirt collection chamber (cavity within first section 24 as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 9 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vacuum cleaner (suction device 10) comprises a third cleaning tool (assembly shown in Figure 2) attachable to the suction unit (handle member 12 and second section 26), the third cleaning tool comprises a third dirt separator (assembly shown in Figure 3), and the first, second and third dirt separators employ different mechanisms for separating dirt from an airflow (shown in Figures 2, 3, 7, and 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 10 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the suction unit (handle member 12 and second section 26) comprises a suction motor (vacuum motor inside vacuum motor housing 56, Paragraph [0041]) and at least one of the cleaning tools comprises an electric motor (may include powered components, Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 12 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the suction unit (handle member 12 and second section 26) forms a handle (shown in Figures 1 and 2) of the vacuum cleaner (suction device 10).
Regarding Claim 13, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 13 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 12, wherein the suction unit (handle member 12 and second section 26) is cylindrical in shape (both handle member 12 and second section 26 have cylindrically shaped portions as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Wellens anticipates:
Claim 14 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the suction unit (handle member 12 and second section 26) comprises a suction motor (vacuum motor inside vacuum motor housing 56, Paragraph [0041]) and a battery pack (power source 58) housed within a body (may be mechanically or electrically connected internal or external to the housing, Paragraph [0041]).
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lubbers et al. US 2022/0346610 (hereafter Lubbers et al.).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Lubbers et al. anticipates:
Claim 1 (Currently Amended): A vacuum cleaner (wet and dry vacuum cleaner, Title) comprising:
a suction unit (portable power module 10 with airflow generator 12);
a first cleaning tool (dry dirt management system 20 assembly shown in Figure 2) attachable to the suction unit (through connection shown), the first cleaning tool comprising a first dirt separator (assembly comprising cyclone chamber and dust collection volume 22, Figure 2); and
a second cleaning tool (dry dirt management system 20 assembly shown in Figure 1) attachable to the suction unit (through connection shown), the second cleaning tool comprising a second dirt separator (assembly comprising outlet filter 24 and dust collection volume 22, Figure 1),
wherein the first dirt separator and the second dirt separator employ different mechanisms for separating dirt from an airflow (Figures 2 shows a cyclonic separation, Figure 1 shows an outlet filter 24).
wherein the first dirt separator (assembly comprising cyclone chamber and dust collection volume 22, Figure 2) comprises a first dirt collection chamber (dust collection volume 22, Figure 2) inside the first dirt separator for collecting dirt (dirt separated from airflow) separated by the first dirt separator, and wherein the second dirt separator (assembly comprising outlet filter 24 and dust collection volume 22, Figure 1) comprises a second dirt collection chamber (dust collection volume 22, Figure 1) inside the second dirt separator for collecting dirt (dirt separated from airflow) separated by the second dirt separator.
NOTE: the claim language “comprising” does not prevent the selection of only one dirt separator in Figure 1 and one dirt separator in Figure 2.
Regarding Claim 7, Lubbers et al. anticipates:
Claim 7 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first dirt separator (assembly comprising cyclone chamber and dust collection volume 22, Figure 2) is a cyclonic separator (shown in Figure 2 and Paragraph [0070]), and the second dirt separator (assembly comprising outlet filter 24 and dust collection volume 22, Figure 1) is a non-cyclonic separator (shown in Figure 1 and Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 11, Lubbers et al. anticipates:
Claim 11 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the suction unit (portable power module 10 with airflow generator 12) comprises a suction motor (airflow generator 12), and the suction motor operates at a first power when the first cleaning tool is attached to the suction unit, and the suction motor operates at a second, different power when the second cleaning tool is attached to the suction unit (Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellens US 2019/0328190 (hereafter Wellens).
Regarding Claim 7, Wellens teaches:
Claim 7 (Previously Presented): The vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first dirt separator (assembly shown in Figure 7) is a cyclonic separator (see discussion below), and the second dirt separator is a non-cyclonic separator (assembly shown in Figure 8).
Wellens discloses in Paragraph [0040] that the device may be a multistage vacuum system that may have a cyclone that provides a cyclonic action to function as a first stage vacuum assembly where the first stage vacuum assembly “may have a first stage reservoir that captures at least a portion of the debris drawn into the first stage vacuum assembly (with sucked in air).” Wellens does not provide a figure depicting this disclosed embodiment, however, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first stage can be incorporated into the first section 24 where it provide an initial cyclonic separator prior to the second section 26 with the motivation to separate the course debris from the fine debris in the first stage which will lessen the rate at which a downstream filter would clog.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 10, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-14 under Wellens US 2019/0328190 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections stand.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 10, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection(s) of Claims 1, 7, and 11 under Lubbers et al. US 2019/0328190 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections stand.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 10, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claim 7 under Wellens US 2019/0328190 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections stand.
In response to the Applicant’s specific arguments the Examiner has provided additional discussion and labeled figures in the presented rejections to clearly identify the claim elements argued by the Applicant as being missing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights