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 .
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.
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: “vacuum collection system”, “fluid delivery system”, and “fluid recovery system” in claims 1 and 11 and “light emitting elements” in claims 1 and 12.
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
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, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 7220930, "Gordon") in view of Woo (KR 20080017649).
1. Gordon teaches a surface cleaning apparatus (10), comprising:
a cleaning head (100) adapted to move over a surface to be cleaned;
a housing (200) coupled with the cleaning head (see Gordon fig. 1);
a vacuum collection system configured to create a partial vacuum to suck up dirt from the surface to be cleaned and collect the dirt in a space provided on the surface cleaning apparatus (the pictured cleaner is a vacuum cleaner and includes a suction motor and filtering unit 300, see Gordon fig. 1 and 5:12-40);
a first user interface (800) on the housing, the first user interface comprising:
a mode select input control to select one of a plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (mode switches based on floor type and power level, see Gordon fig. 5 and 7:15-44);
a plurality of status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (switches are illuminated to indicate mode status, see Gordon fig. 5 and 7:15-44); and
a plurality of first light emitting elements, each of the plurality of first light emitting elements configured to emit visible light to illuminate one of the plurality of status indicators (indicator lights, Gordon fig. 5 and 7:15-44);
wherein the first user interface is structured so that, in response to a single user selection of one of the plurality of modes of operation via the mode select input control, a status indicator corresponding to a selected mode of operation is illuminated by one of the plurality of first light emitting elements and is visible to a user on the housing (indicator lights are turned on to indicate status such as operational mode and are turned off when the cleaner is turned off, see Gordon 7:15-44).
Gordon does not teach the presence of a second user interface on the cleaning head, the second user interface comprising a status display having a plurality of duplicate status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus and a plurality of second light emitting elements, each of the plurality of second light emitting elements configured to emit visible light to illuminate one of the plurality of duplicate status indicators; wherein the second user interface is structured so that, in response to a single user selection of one of the plurality of modes of operation via the mode select input control, the same selected mode of operation is simultaneously represented by illumination of a duplicate status indicator corresponding to a selected mode of operation by one of the plurality of second light emitting elements and is visible to the user on the cleaning head.
However, Woo teaches a surface cleaning apparatus (see Woo fig. 4), comprising:
a cleaning head (200) adapted to move over a surface to be cleaned; a housing (500) coupled with the cleaning head; a vacuum collection system (cleaning apparatus is a vacuum cleaner, see Woo Translation page 1, Abstract); a first user interface on the housing (combination of 510 and 701 are on housing 500, see Woo fig. 4), the first user interface comprising: a mode select input control to select one of a plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (510 controls suction power, see Woo Translation 80-88 and 164-173); and a plurality of status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (display 701 shows a variety of information including operating mode such as suction power, see Woo Translation 190-194); and a second user interface (702) on the cleaning head (see Woo fig. 4), the second user interface comprising a status display having a plurality of duplicate status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (display 702 may also show information regarding operational parameters such as suction power, see Woo Translation 190-194).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Gordon according to the teachings of Woo regarding the inclusion of duplicate displays on a cleaning head and control interface of a cleaning apparatus such that the device included a second user interface on the cleaning head, the second user interface comprising a status display having a plurality of duplicate status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus and a plurality of second light emitting elements, each of the plurality of second light emitting elements configured to emit visible light to illuminate one of the plurality of duplicate status indicators; wherein the first and second user interfaces are structured so that, in response to a single user selection of one of the plurality of modes of operation via the mode select input control, a status indicator corresponding to a selected mode of operation is illuminated by one of the plurality of first light emitting elements and is visible to a user on the housing and the same selected mode of operation is simultaneously represented by illumination of a duplicate status indicator corresponding to a selected mode of operation by one of the plurality of second light emitting elements and is visible to the user on the cleaning head, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (redundant status displays on cleaners as taught by Woo with light emitting displays taught by Gordon) according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
4. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the housing comprises an upright body comprising a handle and a grip (housing includes body 200 and handle 210, Gordon fig. 1) and the cleaning head comprises a base adapted to move over the surface to be cleaned (base 100 has wheels, see Gordon fig. 1), wherein the upright body is coupled with the base to direct the base over the surface to be cleaned (200 is coupled to 100, see Gordon fig. 1).
5. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first user interface is on the grip (user interface 500 is on a forward part of the grip, see Gordon fig. 1).
6. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 5, wherein the cleaning head comprises a cover defining at least one of a suction nozzle and an agitator chamber (suction nozzle 100, see Gordon 5:12-40), and wherein the second user interface is disposed on an upper side of the base rearward of the cover (Woo teaches that 200 is a suction nozzle having a cover on which screen 702 sits and second user interface 702 is on an upper surface of 200 behind the frontmost portion of a cover defining the nozzle, see Woo fig. 4 and Woo Translation 133-138 and 153-155).
7. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the at least one cleaning system includes: the fluid delivery system, and the fluid delivery system comprises a supply container; and the fluid recovery system, and the fluid recovery system comprises a recovery container; and the cleaning head comprises a tool in fluid communication with the supply container and in fluid communication with the recovery container.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Gordon teaches that the cleaning system may comprise a different type of cleaner including a rinse mode and a wet floor cleaning mode (Gordon 3:45-4:10 and 7:45-8:36 and figs. 6-7). From these teachings, one of ordinary skill would infer that the cleaner included means for delivering fluid to rinse a floor and for recovering wet liquid into a recovery container. So although Gordon does not explicitly teach the presence of a fluid delivery system comprising a supply container and the fluid recovery system, the fluid recovery system comprising a recovery container; and the cleaning head comprising a tool in fluid communication with the supply container and in fluid communication with the recovery container, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gordon as modified to include such structure so as to provide the carpet and bare floor cleaner described by Gordon, as doing so is implicitly taught by Gordon.
9. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first user interface comprises a power button to activate and deactivate at least one electronic component of the surface cleaning apparatus (switch 830 turns agitator on or off, see Gordon fig. 5 and 7:26).
10. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, but wherein the plurality of modes of operation comprises at least one liquid dispensing mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus dispenses liquid (Gordon teaches that an embodiment of the cleaning system may comprise a different type of cleaner including a rinse mode, Gordon 3:45-4:10 and 7:45-8:36 and figs. 6-7).
Gordon does not teach that the plurality of modes of operation comprises at least one steam mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus generates steam.
However, Hess teaches a surface cleaning apparatus including mixed fluid dispensing modes including a steam mode (modes of operation include a steam mode, modes dispensing different combinations of water and cleaning agent, and a mixed steam/liquid water mode, see Hess 8:7-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to integrate the teachings from Hess regarding the use of steam and mixed-phase cleaning compositions into the apparatus of Gordon such that it included a steam-generating and dispensing unit and the plurality of modes of operation included at least one steam mode, as doing so represents the combination of known fluid cleaning mechanisms according to known methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Woo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of King et al. (WO 2020095046, "King").
2. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the second user interface is structured so that when the surface cleaning apparatus is off, the status display is blank and the plurality of duplicate status indicators are hidden to the user (Gordon teaches the use of light-up status indicators that would still be visible, while Woo teaches the use of an e-ink screen for a status display, which does not necessarily go blank when powered off).
However, King teaches that a number of technologies are suitable for use in electronic visual displays in vacuum cleaners, including arrays of lights, epaper screens, and LCD or LED screens (King 7:16-8:13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the apparatus of Gordon as modified according to the teachings of King such that the second user interface comprised an active color display technology such as an LED screen, which, as a display technology that is blank when unpowered, would be structured so that when the surface cleaning apparatus is off, the status display is blank and the plurality of duplicate status indicators are hidden to the user, as doing so would improve the ability of a user to the display to rapidly determine a displayed vacuum status or mode (King 8:6-9).
3. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first user interface is structured so that when the surface cleaning apparatus is off, the plurality of status indicators of the first user interface are visible (buttons configured to indicate status are visible regardless of illumination status, see Gordon fig. 5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon and Woo as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hess et al. (US 10548450, "Hess").
8. Gordon as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 7, wherein the second user interface is on a tool in fluid communication with the supply container and in fluid communication with the recovery container (Woo teaches that the second user interface is on a cleaning head, which would serve as a suction/rinse tool in the device of Gordon as modified). Gordon as modified does not teach the presence of a hose interconnecting the tool and the housing, the hose including a fluid delivery conduit in fluid communication with the supply container and an airflow conduit in fluid communication with the recovery container; and a wand interconnecting the tool and the hose.
However, Hess teaches a structure for a surface cleaning apparatus comprising a hose (88 includes a hose 96, see Hess figs. 1 and 6) interconnecting the tool and the housing (hose 96 is between nozzle 102 and housing 10, see Hess figs. 1 and 6), the hose including a fluid delivery conduit (68) in fluid communication with the supply container (32) and an airflow conduit (90) in fluid communication with the recovery container (fluid is delivered from tank 32 through discharge arrangement 68, out the tool, and is suctioned back up vacuum tube 90, through the hose 96, and back into dirty water tank 44, see Hess figs. 2 and 6-9, 8:7-39, and 10:12-36); and a wand (90) interconnecting the tool (102) and the hose (106, see Hess fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the structure for a floor cleaner from Hess into the cleaner of Gordon as modified such that it included a hose interconnecting the tool and the housing, the hose including a fluid delivery conduit in fluid communication with the supply container and an airflow conduit in fluid communication with the recovery container; and a wand interconnecting the tool and the hose; wherein the second user interface is on one of the tool and the wand, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of cleaner structure for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 11-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. in view of Woo and Hooley et al. (US 10582823, "Hooley"), as evidenced by King.
11. Hess teaches a surface cleaning apparatus (10), comprising:
a cleaning head (nozzle 102, see Hess figs. 1 and 6) adapted to move over a surface to be cleaned;
a housing (outside of steam device 10) coupled with the cleaning head (10 and 102 are coupled via hose 96, see Hess fig. 1);
at least one cleaning system selected from a vacuum collection system configured to create a partial vacuum to suck up dirt from the surface to be cleaned and collect the dirt in a space provided on the surface cleaning apparatus (suction unit 40), a fluid delivery system configured to deliver fluid to the surface to be cleaned a fluid delivery system (cleaning agent supplying arrangement 34), and a fluid recovery system configured to remove fluid and dirt from the surface to be cleaned and store the recovered cleaning fluid and dirt (combination of suction unit 40 and dirty water tank 44, see Hess 5:59-6:26);
a first user interface on the housing (operating panel 62, see Hess fig. 5), the first user interface comprising: a mode select input control (64) to select one of a plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (plurality of selectable operating modes, see Hess fig. 5 and 6:65-7:9).
Hess does not explicitly teach that the first user interface comprises at least one of: a power button to activate and de-activate at least one electronic component of the surface cleaning apparatus; a steam button to select a steam mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus generates steam; and a clean-out cycle button to select a self-cleaning mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus executes an automatic, unattended clean-out cycle.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Hess does teach the presence of one or more switches (66, see Hess fig. 5) on the first interface that may trigger operating modes of the device (Hess 7:1-9), and further teaches operating modes including a steam mode and a clean out cycle (modes of operation include a steam mode, modes dispensing different combinations of water and cleaning agent, and a mixed steam/liquid water mode, see Hess 8:7-39; control arrangement 60 controls a cleaning mode, Hess 11:46-51). Although Hess teaches “switches” rather than the claimed buttons, one of ordinary skill would infer that the depicted elements (66, see Hess fig. 5) were not limited to the formal structure of “switches” and that equivalent actuating elements known in the art such as buttons were also implicitly taught. Consequently, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that Hess implicitly teaches a first user interface comprising at least one of: a power button to activate and de-activate at least one electronic component of the surface cleaning apparatus; a steam button to select a steam mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus generates steam; and a clean-out cycle button to select a self-cleaning mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus executes an automatic, unattended clean-out cycle.
Hess does not teach the presence of a second user interface on the cleaning head, the second user interface comprising a status display having a plurality of status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus that are selectable by the mode select input control;
However, Woo teaches a surface cleaning apparatus (see Woo fig. 4), comprising:
a cleaning head (200) adapted to move over a surface to be cleaned; a housing (500) coupled with the cleaning head; a vacuum collection system (cleaning apparatus is a vacuum cleaner, see Woo Translation page 1, Abstract); a first user interface on the housing (combination of 510 and 701 are on housing 500, see Woo fig. 4), the first user interface comprising: a mode select input control to select one of a plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (510 controls suction power, see Woo Translation 80-88 and 164-173); and a plurality of status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (display 701 shows a variety of information including operating mode such as suction power, see Woo Translation 190-194); and a second user interface (702) on the cleaning head (see Woo fig. 4), the second user interface comprising a status display having a plurality of duplicate status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (display 702 may also show information regarding operational parameters such as suction power, see Woo Translation 190-194).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Hess according to the teachings of Woo regarding the inclusion of an additional display on a cleaning head and control interface of a cleaning apparatus such that the device included a second user interface on the cleaning head, the second user interface comprising a status display having a plurality of status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus that are selectable by the mode select input control, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (redundant status displays on cleaners as taught by Woo with the cleaner taught by Hess) according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Hess as modified does not teach that the second user interface is structured so that when the surface cleaning apparatus is off, the status display is blank, and when the surface cleaning apparatus is on, a status indicator corresponding to a selected mode of operation is automatically illuminated and is visible to a user on the second user interface on the cleaning head (Woo teaches the use of an e-ink screen for a status display, which does is not necessarily illuminated and does not necessarily go blank when powered off).
However, Hooley teaches status display for a cleaning head (12), wherein the cleaning head includes a status display (235, see Hooley figs. 7-10 and 3:55-4:19) having a plurality of status indicators representing the plurality of modes of operation of the surface cleaning apparatus (mode indicators, see Hooley figs. 8-10); wherein the second user display is structured so that when the surface cleaning apparatus is off, the status display is blank, and when the surface cleaning apparatus is on, a status indicator corresponding to a selected mode of operation is illuminated and visible to a user (status display relies on backlight from LEDs and would be blank when powered off and showing a mode of operation when powered on, see Hooley figs. 8-10 and 3:55-4:19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the apparatus of Hess as modified according to the teachings of Hooley such that the second user interface included a display comprising a set of backlit status indicators, such that when the surface cleaning apparatus is off, the status display is blank, and when the surface cleaning apparatus is on, a status indicator corresponding to a selected mode of operation selected by the mode input control is automatically illuminated on the cleaning head in response to selection of the mode of operation by the mode select input control and is visible to a user on the second user interface on the cleaning head, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of status display for a head for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill, and the use of an illuminated display would improve the ability of a user to the display to rapidly determine a displayed vacuum status or mode (King 8:6-9).
12. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 11, wherein the cleaning head comprises a translucent portion and includes a plurality of light emitting elements positioned within the cleaning head (the display involves clear plastic portions forming words and LEDs that illuminate the relevant words, see Hooley figs. 8-10 and 3:55-4:19).
13. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 11, wherein the status display includes a masking layer on an outer surface of the cleaning head (black plastic layer 315), regions extending through the masking layer defining the status indicators (clear portions formed in the black panel, see Hooley figs. 8-10 and 3:55-4:19), and a light-transmitting layer covering at least the etched regions (clear plastic layer, see Hooley figs. 8-10 and 3:55-4:19).
Hooley does not teach that the clear portions were formed by etching, and therefore does not explicitly disclose etched regions extending through the masking layer defining the status indicators. However, the reference to “etched regions” appears to teach a method of making the claimed product. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
14. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 11, wherein the housing comprises an upright body comprising a handle (handle 52 is on upright portion of body 10, see Hess fig. 6) and a grip (knob of selector switch 64 is capable of being gripped for rotation, see Hess fig. 5) and the cleaning head comprises a base (body of nozzle 102, see Hess fig. 1) adapted to move over the surface to be cleaned, wherein the upright body is coupled with the base to direct the base over the surface to be cleaned (10 is coupled to nozzle 102 via hose 96 and wand 90 and is capable of directing it over the area to be cleaned, see Hess fig. 1).
15. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first user interface is on the grip (first user interface 62 is coupled to selector switch 64, see Hess figs. 1 and 5).
16. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15, wherein the cleaning head comprises a cover defining at least one of a suction nozzle and an agitator chamber, and wherein the second user interface is disposed on an upper side of the base rearward of the cover (Hooley teaches that second user interface 235 is located on an upper side of a cleaning head behind the portion of a cover defining a nozzle inlet, see Hooley figs. 5 and 11).
17. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 11, wherein the at least one cleaning system includes the fluid delivery system (fluid supplying arrangement 28, see Hess figs. 1-2), and the fluid delivery system comprises a supply container (32) and the fluid recovery system, and the fluid recovery system comprises a recovery container (dirty water tank 44), and the cleaning head comprises a tool (nozzle 102, see Hess figs. 1 and 6) in fluid communication with the supply container and in fluid communication with the recovery container (fluid travels through the discharge portion 68 of suction line arrangement 88 and is recovered via suction portion 90, see Hess figs. 6 and 9).
18. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 17, comprising:
a hose (88 includes a hose 96, see Hess figs. 1 and 6) interconnecting the tool and the housing (hose 96 is between nozzle 102 and housing 10, see Hess figs. 1 and 6), the hose including a fluid delivery conduit (68) in fluid communication with the supply container (32) and an airflow conduit (90) in fluid communication with the recovery container (fluid is delivered from tank 32 through discharge arrangement 68, out the tool, and is suctioned back up vacuum tube 90, through the hose 96, and back into dirty water tank 44, see Hess figs. 2 and 6-9, 8:7-39, and 10:12-36); and
a wand (90) interconnecting the tool (102) and the hose (106, see Hess fig. 1);
wherein the second user interface is on one of the tool and the wand (Hooley teaches the inclusion of a status display on the tool, see Hooley figs. 8-10).
20. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of modes of operation comprises at least one liquid dispensing mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus dispenses liquid and at least one steam mode in which the surface cleaning apparatus generates steam (modes of operation include a steam mode, modes dispensing different combinations of water and cleaning agent, and a mixed steam/liquid water mode, see Hess 8:7-39).
21. Hess as modified teaches the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 11, Hess does not explicitly teach that the first user interface comprises at least two of: the power button, the steam button, and the clean-out cycle button.
However, Hess as modified teaches that the operating modes of the steam device can be triggered by the one or more switches (Hess 7:1-9), that the modes of operation include a steam mode, modes dispensing different combinations of water and cleaning agent, a mixed steam/liquid water mode, and a cleaning mode (see Hess 8:7-39 and Hess 11:46-51). As noted above, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of a reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP § 2144.01. Because Hess teaches that the switches control the operating modes and that the operating modes include steam and cleaning modes, it is reasonable to infer that Hess teaches switches to trigger the steam mode and the self-cleaning mode. Consequently, Hess as modified implicitly teaches that the first user interface comprises at least two of: the power button, the steam button, and the clean-out cycle button.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 May, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection makes an improper inference from Woo, arguing that Woo teaches “the effect of being able to display various pieces of information separately.” Remarks, p.10. In doing so, applicant considers only a part of the prior art, rather than the entire disclosure.
Woo discloses that each of the panels may display "various images and information under the control of the control part" Woo Translation 116-119 and 133-138. The use of a parallel grammatical structure to disclose the potential capabilities of each panel suggests that the panels may be used to display the same kinds of information. Furthermore, Woo teaches that the main panel may display some information such as various images, dust collection status and/or amount, and suction power (Woo Translation 185-194; 239-241); and likewise teaches that the other displays may be used to present similar kinds of information, e.g., strength of suction force or degree of dust collection (Woo Translation 265-269). Because Woo teaches that the information displayed on each of the displays may include the same sorts of information (e.g. suction power/strength of suction force and degree of dust collection/amount of dust collection), and applicant's citation reflects only one of the embodiments rather than the entire disclosure, the inference that Woo suggests a parallel display structure was proper.
Regarding the argument that neither individual reference explicitly teaches the claimed duplication, applicant is reminded that, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Likewise, it has been held that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill would infer a duplicate display of certain information from Woo's parallel disclosure of elements displayable via the plural screens. The claims only describe an intended functionality of the device during operation. Although Woo does not contain an explicit teaching of duplication, it does teach that duplicate information may be sent, which would lead one of ordinary skill to infer that the device of Woo would at least be capable of providing duplicate information, even if it did not specifically disclose an embodiment which did so.
Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In contrast, computer-implemented functional claim limitations may narrow the functionality of the device, by limiting the specific structure capable of performing the recited function. See Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 846 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), (“[s]ince hardware cannot meet these limitations in the absence of enabling software, the claims are properly construed as claiming an apparatus comprising a combination of hardware and software capable of practicing the claim limitations.”).
The claims recite first and second user interfaces including display elements and certain intended uses for those interfaces, but are silent as to the presence of any sort of processor or controller for the interface. Absent such a recitation, the claims must be interpreted as reciting intended uses for the interface rather than computer-implemented functional limitations. See MPEP §2114(IV). Consequently, the arguments directed to a “coordinated system-level interaction” (Remarks p.12) or a “distributed, synchronized user interface architecture” (Remarks p. 16) are misdirected.
Because there is no mention in the claims of a computer or processor programmed to perform the claimed function and the described combination would be capable of displaying duplicate information on multiple displays, it is reasonable to conclude that the claimed inventions would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections of claims 1-18 and 201 as obvious are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights