DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-31, 33-35, 37-40, and 43-44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farley (3,320,727, previously presented) in view of Sheddy (2008/0115311, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 21, Farley teaches a portable surface cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) having a front end (See annotated Fig. 2 below), a rear end (See annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein a longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 1 below) extends in a longitudinal direction (See annotated Fig. 1 below) centrally through the surface cleaning apparatus and intersects the ends (Fig. 2), a transverse axis (See annotated Fig. 1 below) extends in a transverse direction (See annotated Fig. 1 below) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis extend in a plane (Fig. 1), the surface cleaning apparatus comprising:
(a) an air flow path (Fig. 2) extending from a dirty fluid inlet (Ref. 19, Fig. 2) to a clean air outlet (Ref. 21, Fig. 2);
(b) an air treatment chamber (See annotated Fig. 2 below) positioned in the air flow path (Fig. 2), the air treatment chamber having an upper end (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and an opposed lower end (See annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein an air treatment chamber axis (See annotated Fig. 2 below) extends between the upper and lower ends (Fig. 2), wherein an air treatment chamber air inlet (Ref. 20, Fig. 2) and an air treatment chamber air outlet (Ref. 25, Fig. 2) are provided at a common end of the air treatment chamber (Fig. 2 shows the inlet and outlet are at the upper end);
(c) a pre-motor filter (Ref. 45, Fig. 2) positioned in the air flow path downstream from the air treatment chamber (Fig. 2), the pre-motor filter having an upstream surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a downstream surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below);
(d) a suction motor (Ref. 33, Fig. 2) positioned in the air flow path downstream from the pre- motor filter, wherein the suction motor has a motor axis of rotation (See annotated Fig. 2 below),
(f) a carry handle (Ref. 66, Fig. 2) having a hand grip portion (See annotated Fig. 2 below) extending in the longitudinal direction (See annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein, in use, a user carries the surface cleaning apparatus using the carry handle (examiner interprets the limitation as intended use, Fig. 2 shows a handle would be capable of carrying the surface cleaning apparatus using the carry handle),
wherein the pre-motor filter is provided in a pre-motor filter chamber (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and the motor axis of rotation extends through the pre-motor filter chamber (Fig. 2), and
wherein the suction motor is laterally spaced from the air treatment chamber (Fig. 2), and
wherein a second plane (See annotated Fig. 2 below) that is perpendicular to the air treatment chamber axis extends through the air treatment chamber and the suction motor (Fig. 2).
Farley fails to explicitly teach the portable surface cleaning apparatus having side walls, the end walls have an end wall length in the transverse direction and the side wall length is longer than the end wall length and an accessory tool holder which stores an accessory cleaning tool, wherein a plane that is perpendicular to the air treatment chamber axis extends generally perpendicular to the conduit axis and extends through the air treatment chamber, the suction motor, and the accessory cleaning tool. Sheddy teaches a portable surface cleaning apparatus and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sheddy further teaches a portable surface cleaning apparatus having a front end (See annotated Fig. 8 below), a rear end (See annotated Fig. 8 below) and side walls (See annotated Fig. 8 below) extending between the front and rear ends (Fig. 8), each of the front and rear ends has an end wall (Fig. 5, shows the end wall), wherein a longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 8 below) extends in a longitudinal direction centrally through the surface cleaning apparatus and intersects the end walls (Fig. 8), a transverse axis extends in a transverse direction (See annotated Fig. 8 below) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 8), the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis extend in a plane, the side walls have a sidewall length (See annotated Fig. 8 below), the end walls have an end wall length in the transverse direction (Fig. 5) and the side wall length is longer than the end wall length (Fig. 8), the surface cleaning apparatus comprising:
(e) an accessory tool holder (Ref. 32, Fig. 6) which stores an accessory cleaning tool (Ref. 26, Fig. 6) when the accessory cleaning tool is disconnected from air flow communication with the dirty air inlet (Fig. 6, [0024]), the accessory cleaning tool (26) comprising a rigid conduit portion (Ref. 36, Fig. 6) that is connectable to a flexible hose (Ref. 21, Fig. 1, [0021]) and a cleaning head portion (fig. 6), the rigid conduit portion having a conduit axis (See annotated Fig. 6 below), the accessory tool holder is provided on the front or rear end wall (Fig. 5); and
wherein, when mounted to the accessory tool holder (Fig. 5), the rigid conduit portion is secured to the accessory tool holder by an interference fit (Ref. 37, fig. 5, [0026]). Because Farley and Sheddy both teach surface cleaning apparatuses to collect dirt and debris, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing, as taught by Farley, with the housing having a front end, a rear end, and sidewalls, as taught by Sheddy, to hold a vacuum unit to hold and filter dust and debris.
Further, Sheddy teaches when the accessory cleaning tool (26) is mounted to the rear surface (fig. 5) of the surface cleaning apparatus (Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the portable surface cleaning apparatus, as taught by Farley, with an accessory tool holder and an accessory cleaning tool to be on the rear end, as taught by Sheddy, to be intersecting a plane that is perpendicular to the air treatment chamber axis extends through the air treatment chamber and the suction motor as a rearrangement of parts because the position of the accessory cleaning tool on the housing would not have modified the operation of the device and is merely a design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C) and thereby allowing for better balance and allowing for easy storage of plural accessory tools making the tool more portable, more maneuverable and more functional.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
758
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
557
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
487
611
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
504
713
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and further teaches wherein the air treatment chamber axis and the motor axis of rotation are parallel (Fig. 2 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 23, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and further teaches wherein air travels through the air treatment chamber air outlet in a flow direction (Fig. 2) and the flow direction is parallel to the air treatment chamber axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and further teaches wherein the handgrip portion overlies the suction motor and the air treatment chamber (Fig. 2 above shows the hand grip portion overlapping with the suction motor and air treatment chamber).
Regarding Claim 26, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 25 as described above, and further teaches wherein a first end of the carry handle (See annotated Fig. 2 below) is secured to an upper surface of the portable surface cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) at a location that overlies the air treatment chamber (Fig. 2) and a second end of the carry handle (See annotated Fig. 2 below) is secured to the upper surface of the surface cleaning apparatus at a location that overlies the suction motor (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
708
598
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 25 as described above, and further teaches wherein the air treatment chamber axis and the motor axis of rotation are parallel (Fig. 2 annotated above under claim 21).
Regarding Claim 28, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 25 as described above, and further teaches wherein air travels through the air treatment chamber air outlet in a flow direction (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and the flow direction is parallel to the air treatment chamber axis (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image7.png
666
597
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 30, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and Farley further teaches that the rear end (Fig. 2 annotated above) and Sheddy further teaches when the accessory cleaning tool (26) is mounted to the rear surface cleaning apparatus (Fig. 5). Farley as modified fails to explicitly teach the suction motor is located between the air treatment member and the accessory cleaning tool. However, given the teachings of the locations of the rear ends and location of the accessory cleaning tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the accessory cleaning tool, as taught by Farley as modified, to be placed at the rear end, as taught by Sheddy, such that the suction motor would obviously be located between at least one accessory cleaning tool and the air treatment member as a rearrangement of parts because the position of the accessory cleaning tool on the housing would not have modified the operation of the device and is merely a design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C) and thereby allowing for better balance and allowing for easy storage of plural accessory tools making the tool more portable, more maneuverable and more functional.
Regarding Claim 31, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and Farley further teaches that the clean air outlet faces the rear end (Fig. 2 annotated above). Further, Sheddy teaches when the accessory cleaning tool (26) is mounted to the rear surface (fig. 5) of the portable surface cleaning apparatus (Fig. 5). Given the teachings of the clean air outlet facing the rear end and the accessory cleaning tool mounted to the rear surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the accessory cleaning tool, as taught by Farley as modified, to face the accessory cleaning tool outlet, as taught by Sheddy, as a rearrangement of parts because the position of the accessory cleaning tool on the housing would not have modified the operation of the device and is merely a design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C) and thereby allowing for better balance and allowing for easy storage of plural accessory tools making the tool more portable, more maneuverable and more functional.
Regarding Claim 33, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and further teaches wherein the suction motor axis of rotation extends through the carry handle (Fig. 2 annotated below).
Regarding Claim 34, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 23 as described above, and further teaches wherein the air treatment chamber axis extends through the carry handle (Fig. 2 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 35, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and further teaches wherein the air treatment chamber axis extends through the carry handle (Fig. 2 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 37, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 26 as described above, and further teaches wherein the air treatment chamber axis extends through the carry handle (Fig. 2 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 38, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and given the teaching of the tool holder and housing as taught by Sheddy in claim 21, Sheddy further teaches wherein the accessory cleaning tool is mountable at a mounting location (Ref. 34, Fig. 6), and the mounting location is at an elevation that is vertically spaced from an elevation of the dirty air inlet (fig. 1&8 show the mounting location is vertically spaced downwards from the inlet (21)).
Regarding Claim 39, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and given the teaching of the tool holder and housing as taught by Sheddy in claim 21, Sheddy further teaches wherein a wall (Fig. 6) on which the accessory tool holder (32) is provided forms an arcuate shape in the second plane that is perpendicular to the air treatment chamber axis (Ref. 34, [0024] describes a slot in the wall creating an arcuate shape in the second plane that is perpendicular to the air treatment chamber axis to hold the accessory cleaning tool (36)).
Regarding Claim 40, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and given the teaching of the tool holder and housing as taught by Sheddy in claim 21, Sheddy further teaches wherein the dirty air inlet (Ref. 21, Fig. 1) is provided on the front end and the accessory tool holder is provided on the rear end (Fig. 1 shows the dirty air inlet (21) is on the front end and the accessory tool holder is on the rear end (Fig. 5)).
Regarding Claim 43, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and given the teaching of the tool holder and housing as taught by Sheddy in claim 21, Sheddy further teaches wherein the accessory tool holder (32) comprises a pair of interference engagement members (Ref. 34, Fig. 6) that engage opposed sides of a conduit of the accessory cleaning tool (Ref. 36, Fig. 6, [0024]) when the accessory cleaning tool is mounted to the accessory cleaning tool holder (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 44, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and given the teaching of the tool holder and housing as taught by Sheddy in claim 21, Sheddy further teaches wherein an inlet (See annotated Fig. 6 below) to the accessory cleaning tool (26) extends in the second plane that is generally perpendicular to the air treatment chamber axis when the accessory cleaning tool is mounted to the mounting unit (fig .6 shows the inlet extending into the housing tool when resting against the wall in a direction perpendicular to the air treatment chamber axis).
PNG
media_image8.png
338
420
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 41 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farley as modified as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Martinec (2,918,692).
Regarding Claim 41, Farley as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above, and Farley teaches the air treatment chamber axis is vertical (Fig. 2 annotated above). Sheddy further teaches wherein the accessory tool holder (32) comprises a mounting unit (Ref. 34, Fig. 6) that releasably receives a rigid conduit portion of the accessory cleaning tool (Ref. 36, Fig. 6) when the accessory cleaning tool is not in use (Fig. 6), the rigid conduit portion having a central conduit axis (See annotated Fig. 6 below) and the mounting unit (34) is shaped to hold the conduit portion (Fig. 6, [0024]). Farley as modified fails to explicitly teach the central conduit axis extending generally parallel to the air treatment chamber axis. Martinec teaches a surface cleaning apparatus with an accessory tool hold and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Martinec further teaches accessory tool holder (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) comprises a mounting unit (Ref. 23, Fig. 6) that releasably receives a rigid conduit portion of the accessory cleaning tool (Fig. 1) when the accessory cleaning tool is not in use (Fig. 1), the rigid conduit portion having a central conduit axis (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and the mounting unit (23) is shaped to hold the conduit portion (Fig. 1&6) with the central conduit axis extending vertical (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the accessory tool holder and rigid conduit portion, as taught by Farley as modified, to be vertical and parallel to the air treatment chamber axis, as taught by Martinec, by rearrangement of parts, as the orientation of the accessory cleaning tool on the housing would not have modified the operation of the device and is merely a design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C).
PNG
media_image9.png
368
395
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged, examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) and claim objection.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 21, applicant has amended the claims thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach an interference fit and a rigid conduit to secure the accessory tool has been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Farley in view of Sheddy to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Sheddy teaches an accessory tool holder (Ref. 32, Fig. 6) which stores an accessory cleaning tool (Ref. 26, Fig. 6) when the accessory cleaning tool is disconnected from air flow communication with the dirty air inlet (Fig. 6, [0024]), the accessory cleaning tool (26) comprising a rigid conduit portion (Ref. 36, Fig. 6) that is connectable to a flexible hose (Ref. 21, Fig. 1, [0021]) and a cleaning head portion (fig. 6), the rigid conduit portion having a conduit axis (See annotated Fig. 6 below), the accessory tool holder is provided on the front or rear end wall (Fig. 5); and wherein, when mounted to the accessory tool holder (Fig. 5), the rigid conduit portion is secured to the accessory tool holder by an interference fit (Ref. 37, fig. 5, [0026]). Examiner notes the interference fit as having slight friction between parts based upon BRI in light of the specifications of the instant application. Sheddy teaches the rigid conduit portion (36) is secured via an interference fit with the accessory tool (26) due to being held by friction therebetween.
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 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, David Posigian can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights