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
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received August 6, 2025, amending Claims 1, 10, 15, and 16.
Specification
The specification is objected to since the written description only implicitly or inherently discloses the structure, material, or acts for performing the function recited in a claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph.
Specifically, Claims 1-10 and 13-17 contain elements "identification means", “memory means", "filter device", “control device", "suction device", “pressure measuring system", and “mobile terminal device” which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Rather than clearly linking a specific scope of structural features related to the claim limitations, the written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function providing examples rather than a specifically bounded options.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 10, and therefore dependent Claims 11-19, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the characteristic data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since characteristic data has not been previously claimed.
Claims 1-10 and 13-17, and therefore dependent Claims 11, 12, and 18, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements "identification means", “memory means", "filter device", “control device", "suction device", “pressure measuring system", and “mobile terminal device” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function, however, the claim elements are not specifically and distinctly identified and tied to the specific structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Therefore, the specification does not provide a clear description of the structural elements of the cited claim elements that provides a clear boundary for the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. .
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant may:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.175(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181 .
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
As previously presented, the claim elements presented in 1-10 and 13-17 cannot be properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification does not provide a clear boundary regarding the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination of Claims 1-10 and 13-17, the Examiner will attempt, as best understood, to match the claim elements to structure in the prior art that is similar to the Applicant's device with similar/equivalent operation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornelissen DE 102017106206 A1 (hereafter Cornelissen).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Cornelissen anticipates:
1. A suction device (cleaning device 1) having at least one fan (blower 4) for generating a suction air stream in a suction channel (base channel 20), at least one filter device (filter bag 29) for receiving suction material (suction material), at least one pressure measuring system (base pressure sensor 11), and at least one control device (control and evaluation device 10), wherein the suction device is designed for coupling to a plurality of different attachments (attachment 3 – also “various attachments” - The attachment may, for example, be an attachment having an electric brush, a hard floor nozzle, a carpet floor nozzle or the like. Furthermore, it is also possible for the attachment to provide a wiper device for a combined suction-wipe cleaning device) on the suction channel,
wherein the control device (control and evaluation 10) is configured and arranged for determining a filling level of the filter device using at least one pressure measurement value (determined pressure measured by pressure sensor 11) and characteristic data (combined detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3, in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment 3. The characteristic data is a pressure compensation value which is an offset, which represents a correction value for the detected pressure), as well as for selecting the characteristic data used for the determination depending on an attachment of the plurality of different attachments connected to the suction device (detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value provided by data processing device 8 on the attachment 3 is used by the control and evaluation 10 is a characteristic of the type of attachment);
wherein at least one comparison of the pressure measurement value (determined pressure measured by pressure sensor 11) to at least one portion of the characteristic data (data comprising the combination of detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3, in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment) takes place (a comparison includes – calculating the difference between the pressure measured by pressure sensor 11 and 7 and adding the adjusted pressure compensation value), whereby an assignment to a filling level of the filter device takes place (a pressure differential of 120 hPa can be achieved, which is used as a limit to inform a user that the suction chamber is completely full and should be emptied. On the other hand, if the attachment of the standard combination is exchanged for another attachment, the design-related and application-related typical pressure loss changes compared to the attachment of the standard combination. For the pressure difference, this may mean, for example, that when the suction chamber is completely filled, only a pressure difference of 105 hPa is determined even though the suction chamber is completely filled. In order to compensate for this difference to the standard combination, the header pressure sensor transmits its measured value in combination with a pressure compensation value of + 15 hPa, so that the pressure difference determined by the control and evaluation unit again corresponds to 120 hPa, as in the standard combination, and the filling chamber level accordingly is displayed correctly again).
In other words, each attachment has unique characteristic data including a combination of detected pressure at sensor 7 (during operation) and an “adjusted pressure compensation value” which is a correction value for the detected pressure. The header pressure sensor 7 transmits its measured value and the adjusted pressure compensation value to the control and evaluation unit 10 which compares the values to the detected pressure at sensor 11 to determine a calculated pressure difference (as described in the provided reference wording above). When the calculated pressure difference during operation increases to a value of 120hPA, it indicates that the suction chamber is completely full.
Regarding Claim 2, Cornelissen anticipates:
2. The suction device according to claim 1, wherein the pressure measurement value represents an overpressure measurement value (exceeding of a certain maximum level leads to a shutdown of the blower of the cleaning device).
Regarding Claim 4, Cornelissen anticipates:
4. The suction device according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the characteristic data (combined detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3) represents a plurality of overpressure threshold values (adjusted pressure compensation value based on the attachment), wherein each overpressure threshold value is assigned to at least one filling level of the filter device (Various attachments 3 have different such pressure compensation values, so that from the respectively detected pressure and the pressure compensation value, a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used).
Regarding Claim 5, Cornelissen anticipates:
5. The suction device according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic data (combined detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3) for each attachment out of the plurality of attachments (adjusted pressure compensation value based on the attachment) comprises a different set of overpressure threshold values, wherein a specific set of overpressure threshold values is provided for every combination of power settings of the fan and every attachment out of the plurality of attachments (Various attachments 3 have different such pressure compensation values, so that from the respectively detected pressure and the pressure compensation value, a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used).
Regarding Claim 7, Cornelissen anticipates:
7. The suction device according to claim 1, wherein identification data (data received from data processing device 8 of the attachment) concerning an attachment of the plurality of attachments are processed and/or generated by reading at least one identification means of the attachment and/or by transmission to an attachment interface and/or a data interface (a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used. The means of the data processing device 8th The calculated reference value is then transmitted via the communication link 24 and the electrical contacts 17,18 and the communication link 25 to the control and evaluation device 10 of the base unit 2 forwarded).
Regarding Claim 8, Cornelissen anticipates:
8. The suction device according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the characteristic data (combined detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3) is made available in a memory of the control device (control and evaluation 10), and/or at least a portion of the characteristic data can be retrieved and/or transmitted via a data interface (data processing device 8)(a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used. The means of the data processing device 8th The calculated reference value is then transmitted via the communication link 24 and the electrical contacts 17,18 and the communication link 25 to the control and evaluation device 10 of the base unit 2 forwarded).
Regarding Claim 9, Cornelissen anticipates:
9. The suction device according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the characteristic data (attachment 3 adjusted pressure compensation values which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3 , in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment 3. The pressure compensation value here is an offset, which represents a correction value for the detected pressure) is read by the control device (control and evaluation device 10) from a memory (data memory) every time the attachment is changed and/or every time the power setting is changed (power setting not selected due to “or”), and made available for a determination.
Regarding Amended Claim 10, Cornelissen anticipates:
10. A method for determining a filling level of a filter device (bag filter 29) of a suction device (cleaning device 1) with at least one suction channel (base channel 20), wherein the suction device is configured for coupling to a plurality of different attachments (attachment 3 – also other attachments 3) on the suction channel, the method comprises the following method steps:
processing of identification data of an attachment of the plurality of attachments coupled to the suction device (processing of data received from data processing device 8 of the attachment),
determining of at least one pressure measurement value within the suction channel (using base pressure sensor 11),
determination of at least one filling level of the filter device using the processed identification data of the attachment, the pressure measurement value, as well as the characteristic data (combined detected pressure measured by header pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3), wherein the determination of the filling level includes a comparison of the pressure measurement value (determined pressure measured by pressure sensor 11) to at least one portion of the characteristic data (data comprising the combination of detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3, in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment)(determination includes – calculating the difference between the pressure measured by pressure sensor 11 and 7 and adding the adjusted pressure compensation value)(a pressure differential of 120 hPa can be achieved, which is used as a limit to inform a user that the suction chamber is completely full and should be emptied. On the other hand, if the attachment of the standard combination is exchanged for another attachment, the design-related and application-related typical pressure loss changes compared to the attachment of the standard combination. For the pressure difference, this may mean, for example, that when the suction chamber is completely filled, only a pressure difference of 105 hPa is determined even though the suction chamber is completely filled. In order to compensate for this difference to the standard combination, the header pressure sensor transmits its measured value in combination with a pressure compensation value of + 15 hPa, so that the pressure difference determined by the control and evaluation unit again corresponds to 120 hPa, as in the standard combination, and the filling chamber level accordingly is displayed correctly again).
In other words, each attachment has unique characteristic data including a combination of detected pressure at sensor 7 (during operation) and an “adjusted pressure compensation value” which is a correction value for the detected pressure. The header pressure sensor 7 transmits its measured value and the adjusted pressure compensation value to the control and evaluation unit 10 which compares the values to the detected pressure at sensor 11 to determine a calculated pressure difference (as described in the provided reference wording above). When the calculated pressure difference during operation increases to a value of 120hPA, it indicates that the suction chamber is completely full.
Regarding Claim 11, Cornelissen anticipates:
11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the determination of the filling level includes the selection of characteristic data (combined detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3),
wherein the selection of the characteristic data takes place using the identification data (data from data processing device 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Cornelissen anticipates:
13. The method according to claim 10, wherein the characteristic data (combined detected pressure measured by pressure sensor 7 and adjusted pressure compensation value which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3) comprise at least a plurality of overpressure threshold values (pressure compensation values are determined for a plurality of attachments allowing the overpressure threshold values for each attachment to be appropriately corrected),
wherein each overpressure threshold value is assigned to a filling level of the filter device (for example, only a value of 105 hPa is measured, although the suction chamber 5 is completely filled. To compensate for this difference to the standard combination, the header pressure sensor transmits 7 the electric carpet brush now its measured pressure with a pressure compensation value of here, for example + 15 hPa, so that of the base unit 2 used to form the pressure difference corrected measured value again leads to a calculated pressure difference of 120 hPa and the level of the suction chamber 5 as a result, it will be displayed correctly again).
Regarding Claim 14, Cornelissen anticipates:
14. The method according to claim 10, wherein the processing of identification data (data from data processing device 8) includes the generation of identification data by the control device and/or the reception and/or transmission of identification data via an attachment interface and/or the reception and/or transmission of identification data concerning the coupled attachment via a data interface (communication link 9)(The control and evaluation device 10 then determines from the attachment 3 transmitted reference pressure and the pressure measured by the base pressure sensor 11, a pressure difference, which is the pressure drop across the suction chamber 5 characterized. Since the reference pressure has been adjusted for flow device typical flow conditions, that of the control and evaluation device 10 determined pressure difference of factors of the attachment 3 adjusted dimension for the filling level of the suction chamber 5).
Regarding Amended Claim 15, Cornelissen anticipates:
15. The method according to claim 10, wherein each time the suction device is turned on and/or each time the attachment is changed and/or each time the power setting of the fan is changed (power setting not selected due to “or”), the overpressure threshold values from the characteristic data which correspond to the current combination of power setting and attachment are read by the control device from a memory means for the assignment of a fill status and are made available for a determination (a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used. The means of the data processing device 8th The calculated reference value is then transmitted via the communication link 24 and the electrical contacts 17,18 and the communication link 25 to the control and evaluation device 10 of the base unit 2 forwarded).
Regarding Amended Claim 16, Cornelissen anticipates:
16. The suction device according to claim 2, wherein the overpressure measurement value is detectable in the air stream channel (base channel 20) at a location behind a filter unit (bag filter 29) in the air flow direction.
Regarding Claim 17, Cornelissen anticipates:
17. The suction device according to claim 8, wherein the data interface (communication link 9) is a network (internally networked to control and evaluation device 10) or a server or a mobile terminal device.
Regarding Claim 18, Cornelissen anticipates:
18. The method according to claim 13, wherein a different set of overpressure threshold values (adjusted pressure compensation value based on the attachment) are made available for each attachment out of the plurality of attachments (Various attachments 3 have different such pressure compensation values, so that from the respectively detected pressure and the pressure compensation value, a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used).
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.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelissen DE 102017106206 A1 (hereafter Cornelissen) in view of Hoekstra et al. US 5,542,146 (hereafter Hoekstra et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Cornelissen teaches:
6. The suction device according to claim 1, wherein the selection of the characteristic data (attachment 3 adjusted pressure compensation values which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3 , in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment 3. The pressure compensation value here is an offset, which represents a correction value for the detected pressure) used for the determination additionally takes place depending on a power setting of the fan selected by the user (see discussion below).
Cornelissen discloses “The pressure compensation value is characteristic of the type of attachment 3 , in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment 3 , For example, depend on a structural flow resistance, for example. Due to a shape and size of the suction mouth 14 , the suction channel 6 and the like. The pressure compensation value here is an offset, which represents a correction value for the detected pressure. Various attachments 3 have different such pressure compensation values, so that from the respectively detected pressure and the pressure compensation value, a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used. “ Therefore, the Cornelissen discloses a determination of the pressure compensation value for a single power setting of the fan.
The reference Hoekstra et al. discloses a vacuum cleaner with multiple suction power levels. Therefore, the user may select a desired power level for his specific operation causing the motor to operate at a different speed and airflow rate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cornelissen vacuum cleaner to include multiple motor speeds as taught by Hoekstra et al. with the motivation to provide a user more control over suction pressure/airflow when desired. That being said, it would have been obvious to modify the Cornelissen device to determine new pressure compensation values for each different power level so that the device can operate as disclosed in multiple power level settings.
Regarding Claim 19, Cornelissen teaches:
19. The method according to claim 13, wherein a specific set of overpressure threshold values (attachment 3 adjusted pressure compensation values which is a characteristic of the type of attachment 3 , in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment 3. The pressure compensation value here is an offset, which represents a correction value for the detected pressure) is made available for each combination of power settings of the fan and each attachment out of the plurality of attachments (see discussion below).
Cornelissen discloses “The pressure compensation value is characteristic of the type of attachment 3 , in particular for the flow conditions within the attachment 3 , For example, depend on a structural flow resistance, for example. Due to a shape and size of the suction mouth 14 , the suction channel 6 and the like. The pressure compensation value here is an offset, which represents a correction value for the detected pressure. Various attachments 3 have different such pressure compensation values, so that from the respectively detected pressure and the pressure compensation value, a reference value can be determined, which is independent of the specific type of the attachment 3 for a filling level determination of the suction chamber 5 can be used. “ Therefore, the Cornelissen discloses a determination of the pressure compensation value for a single power setting of the fan.
The reference Hoekstra et al. discloses a vacuum cleaner with multiple suction power levels. Therefore, the user may select a desired power level for his specific operation causing the motor to operate at a different speed and airflow rate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cornelissen vacuum cleaner to include multiple motor speeds as taught by Hoekstra et al. with the motivation to provide a user more control over suction pressure/airflow when desired. That being said, it would have been obvious to modify the Cornelissen device to determine new pressure compensation values for each different power level so that the device can operate as disclosed in multiple power level settings.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objection
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s arguments and found them unsatisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the previous Specification Objection.
Claim Objection
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous Claim Objection.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner has reviewed the applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous rejections of Claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed August 6, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, and 13-18 under Cornelissen DE 102017106206 A1 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 6 and 19 under Cornelissen DE 102017106206 A1 in view of Hoekstra et al. US 5,542,146 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. As necessitated by amendment, the rejections have been modified to address the new claim limitations.
In response to the Specification Objection, the Applicant’s arguments focus on providing support for the identified claim elements. The Examiner would like to point out that support for the identified claim limitations was not specifically questioned. The Specification Objection is a result of the use of cited claim elements that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the scope of the cited claim elements is fully bounded by the disclosed specification. For several cited claim elements, the Specification identifies, for example, a list of potential options. However, by doing so, the list is not limited to only those options. Therefore, the Specification does not fully bind the scope of the cited claim elements that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Examiner recommends the Applicant consider rewriting the claims in a form that does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For example: “identification means” is replaced with “RFID chip”, “filter device” is replaced with “filter”, “suction device” is replaced with “fan”, etc., in a form consistent with the disclosure. Appropriate correction to eliminate terms that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) would resolve the Specification Objection and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the claims that are indefinite due to the unbounded scope of the claim elements under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
In response to Applicant's arguments that the references are different than the Applicant’s device and fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., details from Applicant's Paragraph [0006] and [0046]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, despite the differences in the devices, the prior art reference provide evidence that the device and method are disclosed as claimed using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. The rejections in this office action have been modified to improve the clarity of the original rejections and address the amended language.
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 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