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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 1/6/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 3, 4, 15, 18 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/16/2025.
Claims 15 and 22 recite the downstream portion is closed during the emptying mode of operation which is drawn towards at least species II, fig. 31. However, elected species I (fig. 30) has the downstream portion of the air flow path open during the emptying mode of operation due to the single motor. Overall, Claims 15 and 22 are not directed towards elected species I and is instead directed towards non-elected species II. Accordingly, claims 15 and 22 are withdrawn.
Claims 3-4 and 18 recite the upstream portion remains open during the emptying mode of operation which is drawn towards at least species II, fig. 31. However, elected species I (fig. 30) has the upstream portion closed during the emptying mode of operation. Overall, Claims 3-4 and 18 are not directed towards elected species I and are instead directed towards non-elected species II. Accordingly, claims 3-4 and 18 are withdrawn.
Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 5-14, 16-17 and 19-21 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the language recites “the air treatment member of the apparatus”. However the term “the air treatment member of the apparatus” lacks proper antecedent basis because it has not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] an air treatment member of the apparatus”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
Claims 12-14, 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sernecki et al. (DE 102015100057), hereinafter Sernecki.
Regarding claim 12, Sernecki teaches a surface cleaning apparatus (figs. 1-3, cleaner 1) comprising:
(a) an air flow path extending from a dirty air inlet (fig. 2, nozzle 2) to a clean air outlet (fig. 1, blower air outlet 22);
(b) an air treatment member positioned in the air flow path (see annotated fig. 2 below), the air treatment member comprising an air treatment member air inlet (see annotated fig. 2 below), an air treatment member air outlet (see annotated fig. 2 below), a chamber and a dirt collection region (see annotated fig. 2 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
854
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the dirt collection region having an openable door (structure indicated by element 12 is interpreted as the openable door) and an opening that is closed by the openable door (fig. 2-3); and,
(c) a suction motor provided in the air flow path downstream of the chamber (fig. 2, blower 4),
wherein, during an emptying mode of operation (fig. 3), the openable door is opened (fig. 3) whereby dirt collected in the dirt collection region is emptiable by gravity (fig. 3, the dirt collected in the dirt collection region is emptiable partially via gravity. Therefore, the prior art teaches the limitation), and
wherein, during a cleaning mode of operation (fig. 2), air travels in a first pattern through the chamber and is exhausted to ambient by the suction motor (fig. 1-2, exhausted through outlet 22 to ambient) and, during the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3), air travels in a second pattern through the chamber (fig. 3) and is also exhausted to the ambient by the suction motor (fig. 1 and 3, exhausted through outlet 22 to ambient) wherein the second pattern differs to the first pattern (figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Sernecki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Sernecki teaches wherein during the cleaning mode of operation (fig. 2), air exits the air treatment member through the air treatment member air outlet (fig. 2), which is located on one wall of the air treatment member (see annotated fig. 2 above) and, during the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3), air exits the air treatment member through another wall of the air treatment member (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Sernecki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Sernecki teaches further comprising a valve (valve 15) which moves from a first position when the surface cleaning apparatus is used in the cleaning mode of operation (fig. 2) and a second position during the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Sernecki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Sernecki teaches wherein the suction motor is operated during the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Sernecki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Sernecki teaches wherein the openable door is opposed to and faces the air treatment member air outlet (fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 19, Sernecki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Sernecki teaches a system comprising the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 12 (see above rejection of claim 12) and a collection apparatus (figs. 2-3, base station 6) for receiving dirt from the dirt collection region of the surface cleaning apparatus (fig. 2-3, the base station 6 includes an air filter in the form of a dust filter bag for receiving dirt from the dirt collection region of the surface cleaning apparatus) wherein, when the dirt collection region of the surface cleaning apparatus is docked with the collection apparatus and the system is in the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3), the suction motor produces a flow of air as dirt travels from the dirt collection region of the surface cleaning apparatus to an air treatment member of the collection apparatus (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Sernecki teaches a surface cleaning apparatus (figs. 1-3, cleaner 1) comprising:
(a) an air flow path extending from a dirty air inlet (fig. 2, nozzle 2) to a clean air outlet (fig. 1, blower air outlet 22);
(b) an air treatment member positioned in the air flow path (see annotated fig. 2 below), the air treatment member comprising an air treatment member air inlet (see annotated fig. 2 below), an air treatment member air outlet (see annotated fig. 2 below), a chamber and a dirt collection region (see annotated fig. 2 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
854
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the dirt collection region having an openable door (structure indicated by element 12 is interpreted as the openable door); and,
(c) a suction motor provided in the air flow path downstream of the chamber (fig. 2, blower 4),
wherein during a cleaning mode of operation (fig. 2), air exits the air treatment member through the air treatment member air outlet (fig. 2), which is located on one wall of the air treatment member (fig. 2), and is exhausted to ambient by the suction motor (fig. 1-2, exhausted through outlet 22 to ambient) and, during an emptying mode of operation (fig. 3), air exits the air treatment member through another wall of the air treatment member (fig. 3), and is also exhausted to the ambient by the suction motor (fig. 1 and 3, exhausted through outlet 22 to ambient), and
wherein, during the emptying mode of operation, the openable door is opened (fig. 3) whereby dirt collected in the dirt collection region is emptiable by gravity (fig. 3, the dirt collected in the dirt collection region is emptiable partially via gravity. Therefore, the prior art teaches the limitation).
Regarding claim 21, Sernecki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 20. Additionally, Sernecki teaches further comprising a valve (valve 15) which moves from a first position when the surface cleaning apparatus is used in the cleaning mode of operation (fig. 2) and a second position during the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 1-2 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sernecki et al. (DE 102015100057), hereinafter Sernecki, in view of Smith (US PGPUB 20130091662).
Regarding claim 1, Sernecki teaches a surface cleaning apparatus (figs. 1-3, cleaner 1) comprising:
(a) an air flow path extending from a dirty air inlet (fig. 2, nozzle 2) to a clean air outlet (fig. 1, blower air outlet 22);
(b) an air treatment member positioned in the air flow path (see annotated fig. 2 below), the air treatment member comprising an air treatment member air inlet (see annotated fig. 2 below), an air treatment member air outlet (see annotated fig. 2 below), a chamber and a dirt collection region (see annotated fig. 2 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
854
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the dirt collection region having an openable door (structure indicated by element 12 is interpreted as the openable door);
(d) the suction motor provided in the air flow path downstream of the chamber (fig. 2, blower 4),
wherein, in an emptying mode orientation (fig. 3), the openable door is a bottom wall of the dirt collection region (fig. 3) and, during an emptying mode of operation (fig. 3), the openable door is opened (fig. 3) and the suction motor draws air from the dirt collection region and expels the air to ambient (fig. 1 and 3, exhausted through outlet 22 to ambient).
Sernecki does not explicitly teach
(c) a pre-motor filter positioned downstream of the chamber and upstream of a suction motor; and,
wherein the air flow path comprises a downstream portion extending from the pre- motor filter to the suction motor.
However, Smith teaches a cyclonic separation apparatus for a handheld vacuum cleaner, wherein
(c) a pre-motor filter (fig. 27, filter 440) positioned downstream of the chamber (fig. 27) and upstream of a suction motor (fig. 27); and,
wherein the air flow path comprises a downstream portion extending from the pre- motor filter to the suction motor (fig. 27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sernecki to incorporate the teachings of Smith to provide a pre-motor filter positioned downstream of the chamber and upstream of a suction motor; and, wherein the air flow path comprises a downstream portion extending from the pre- motor filter to the suction motor.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a premotor filter (as taught by Smith) into the cleaner of Sernecki, wherein the premotor filter is positioned downstream of the chamber and upstream of the suction motor of Sernecki, wherein the air flow path comprises a downstream portion extending from the pre motor filter to the suction motor.
Doing so would promote longevity of the motor by further filtering small debris from the airflow before it interacts with the motor. Additionally, doing so would further promote cleanliness and remove any residual debris from the airflow.
Regarding claim 2, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches a valve (valve 15 of Sernecki) which moves from a first position when the surface cleaning apparatus is used in a cleaning mode of operation (fig. 2 of Sernecki) and a second position during the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3 of Sernecki).
Regarding claim 5, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches wherein during a cleaning mode of operation, air travels in a first pattern through the chamber (fig. 2 of Sernecki) and, during the emptying mode of operation, air travels in a second pattern through the chamber (fig. 3 of Sernecki) wherein the second pattern differs to the first pattern (fig. 2-3 of Sernecki).
Regarding claim 6, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches wherein during the cleaning mode of operation, air exits the air treatment member through the air treatment member air outlet, which is located on one wall of the air treatment member (fig. 2 of Sernecki) and, during the emptying mode of operation, air exits the air treatment member through another wall of the air treatment member (fig. 3 of Sernecki).
Regarding claim 7, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches wherein during a cleaning mode of operation, air exits the air treatment member through the air treatment member air outlet, which is located on one wall of the chamber (fig. 2 of Sernecki) and, during the emptying mode of operation, air exits the air treatment member through another wall of the air treatment member (fig. 3 of Sernecki).
Regarding claim 8, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches wherein the dirt collection region is exposed to sub-atmospheric pressure when the openable door is in an open position (fig. 3 of Sernecki, via motor 4 of Sernecki).
Regarding claim 9, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches wherein the suction motor is operated during the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3 of Sernecki).
Regarding claim 10, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches wherein the openable door is opposed to and faces the air treatment member air outlet (fig. 2 of Sernecki).
Regarding claim 11, Sernecki, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Sernecki, as modified, teaches a system comprising the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1) and an apparatus for receiving dirt from the dirt collection region (figs. 2-3, base station 6 of Sernecki) wherein, when the dirt collection region of the surface cleaning apparatus is docked with the apparatus and the system is in the emptying mode of operation (fig. 3 of Sernecki), the suction motor produces a flow of air as dirt travels from the dirt collection region of the surface cleaning apparatus to the air treatment member of the apparatus (fig. 3 of Sernecki).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the previously cited prior art (Meggle and Walter) fails to teach the amended claim language. For these reasons, Applicant argues the independent claims and respective dependent claims are allowable. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Meggle and Walter were not relied upon to teach the amended language. Rather, Sernecki and Smith were relied upon to teach the amended language. The independent claims have been rejected. See above rejection for more details. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
7. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723